Licensed and Published by Authority, Septemb. 28. 1663.
THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE Holy Scripture ASSERTED, And the Pretended INFALLIBILITY OF The Church of ROME REFUTED: In Answer to TWO PAPERS and TWO TREATISES OF Father JOHNSON a ROMANIST, about the GROUND thereof.
By JOHN SHERMAN, D. D.
WHERETO ARE PREFIXED A Commendatory Epistle from the late Bishop of NORWICH: AND, A Letter of Approbation from Dr. Tho. Pierce, wherein is given a Specimen of Mr. Cressy's Misadventures against his SERMON.
LONDON, Printed by E. Cotes, for Henry Eversden, at the Grey-hound in St. Paul's Church-yard, 1664.
To his Worthy Friend, Mr. Samuel Tofte, entrusted with the publication of the following Work; which the Author liv'd to Print, but not to Publish.
HAving received, with your Letter, the learned Book you sent with it, I hasten to pay you my thanks for both; and in answer to the former, have done to the latter what you desir'd. You (I doubt not) will commend me for complying so soon with so great a Stranger; But I have need of saying something to excuse my Easiness to my self. And the All I have to say, is entirely this: That notwithstanding you are a Gentleman I never yet saw, nor till your Letter came to me, had ever heard of; yet Dr. Sherman was a person, whom having never seen, I had heard of often. I often heard he had been one, who suffer'd many things and well, for his King and Countrey; one in whom Learning and Religion had for many years met, and had equal shares. To which I add, that he was one of those Cambridge-men, of whom [Page] (before I was admitted into that University) I should for many years together have had a very great Envy, [...], &c. Diod. Sic. lib. 1. [...]. Thucyd. l 5. but for my Reverence, and my Love, which were extremely much greater. For methinks I stand affected towards Oxford and Cambridge as Thucydides did to Athens and Poloponnesus, whereof the first was an unkind Mother, and the second a loving Nurse. Thence was he fitted (more than others) for an Impartial Historian of the Warr between both, because his Gratitude to the one, was as prevalent with him, as his natural Affection unto the other.
Growing thus kind to Dr. Sherman, and somewhat yet the kinder to him (at least the apter to express it this way) because he is not here in Being to thank me for it, I read as much of his Discourses in Confutation of Father Johnson, as would consist with my greater, though less acceptable, Employments. Perhaps I read what I could read with as much eagerness and delight since I saw it printed, as the most excellent Bishop Hall by a written Copy. And I am heartily glad to see that extant in 63. which such an exemplary Prelate so much commended to the publick in 54. He hath commended it indeed to so good a purpose, and the work it self will so deservedly commend it self to All Readers, (All I [...]an who have the skill to compare and grasp it, as well as [Page] the patience to read it through,) that should I say, how much I think it to be an acute and a solid piece, I should consider my self too much, and the Book too little.
Nothing pleaseth me more than the Condition of the Subject, on which the Challenge of the Jesuite drew forth his Answer. For the point of Infallibility must needs be one of the two Pillars, (whereof the Pope's pretended Headship or Universal Pastorship is the other,) wherewith the Trumperies superstructed must stand or fall. That as twas skilfully contriv'd by Father Johnson, to spend his strength in securing that saving Error, [The Church of Rome cannot err,] as giving excellent security to whatsoever other Errors his Church can own; and under which, as an Asylum, the grossest Follies they can get by do live in safety; so 'twas as happily resolv'd by Dr. Sherman (upon so good an Occasion given) to shew the Feeblenesse and defects even of that which does hold up the Papal Grandeur; and cannot choose but be acknowledg'd even by men of both sides, to be their first or their second most Helpfull Engine.
This does bring into my mind, what I was told some years agoe by Mr. Patrick Carew (when newly come out of Italy, wherein from his childhood he had been bred,) That having first been convinc'd by the little Treatise, which had been penn'd on that point [Page] by his brother Falkland, That his belov [...] Roman Church was not unerrable; He could not hinder his own Discovery, how very grievously she had err'd. Nor by consequence could he hinder his own Conversion from a Church still pretending to a priviledge of not being able to be deceiv'd, as soon as he found 'twas even That, that had most deceiv'd him. And truely, had I been bless'd but with a little of that leisure which some enjoy, whereby to have written some Reply to Serenus Cress [...], who pretending to confute, has escap'd my Sermon, and only fought like a Parthian, by certain dexterous Tergiversations, though unlike a Parthian in point of mischief; neither denying, nor disproving, but still evading my Citations, and taking very great care to obscure his own; as well by making both the Greek and the Latin Fathers to hold their peace in Greek and Latin, and only speak in such English as He affords them, as by concealing both the Pages and the Editions of his Authors, for fear a Protestant should have leisure and patience too, whereby to bring them to a strict and a speedy Trial: I say, had I time to Refute his Book, which untill the other day I had not time enough to Read, (nor then quite through,) I should not inlarge on any point with greater contentment to my Self, or greater hope of convincing both Him and His, than That on [Page] which he hopes most to guard his obstinacy by.
For (that I may touch on that Subject which the Reverend Dr. Sherman hath largely handled, so as to add to his Thoughts what I find uppermost in mine own,) when the Romanists contend for the Church of Rome's being Infallible, they mean by the Roman, the whole Church Catholick; and by the whole Church Catholick, theyFather Johason, p. 350. mean as many as own the Pope for their Soveraign Pastor. This is call'd (by a plainer phrase,)Father Cressy, p. 95. The present Visible Church, to which (for all the General Councils) the last Recourse is to be had. But why rather to the present than to the Primitive Church? or why to the present Church Visible, rather than to the four first General Councils? Even because (saithIbid. Mr. Cressy) Universal Experience doth demonstrate it impossible, that any Writing can end a Debate between multitudes of persons interessed, and therefore not impartial or indifferent. Thus still there is something, not only fallible, but false, whereby a Romanist is to judge where to find Infallibility; (for wheresoever That is, the last Recourse is to be made;) Because an Experience as universal as that whereof Mr. Cressy speaks, doth also demonstrate it as impossible, That any present Church Visible (much less that His) should put an end to a Debate between multitudes of persons, whose Interest and Byasse [Page] is multifariously divided as well as They. Men must equally agree (which they never will) first what is to be meant by the present Visible Church; and after That, that she is Infallible; before she can possibly put an end to all their Dissensions in their Debates.
But what does he mean by the present Church Visible? Does he mean all the Churches that do submit unto the Pope as their Soveraign Pastor, either IN or OUT of a General. Council? If the first, he must mean either a written or speaking Council. If the former, Then he should not have distinguish'd it from the present Church Visible, as here he does. Then there needed no more then One, but That (by all means) must be a standing General Council, from the beginning of the Church till the Day of Judgement. And then the Church was never able to make her Members the better for her Infallibility, or to prove she had such a privilege, by being able to put an End to a Debate between Multitudes of different Interest and Judgement in several Nations, either before the Nicaene Council, which was the first that was General; or since the Council held at Trent, which they avow to be the last. But if he means only a speaking Council, then he confesses that at present there is no such present Visible Church, as can Infallibly put an end to the Debate above mention'd; even because there is no such General [Page] Council. Which being so; where is the boasted Infallibility? How shall we find or comprehend it? or how is any Creature the wiser for it? And if he means (what was said in the second Branch of my first Dilemma,) All the Churches that own the Pope as their Soveraign Pastor, not in, but OUT of a General Council, Then the Pope in his Conclave, or College of Cardinals, (which, by the way, is a Conventicle, though not a Council, not Concilium, but Conciliabulum,) must be the sole, proper speaking Judge, who can end such a Debate as before we spake of; so that in Him, as in her Head the present Visible Church does entirely lodge; at least in respect of her Infallible Judgement; which none but the Pope (out of a Council) can have or utter. But thus the Romanists Absurdities will be more shamefull than before. For the Pope may be an Heretick, if not an Heathen. Pope Marcellinus was the first, and Pope Liberius the second. And there is no better arguing than to the Aptitude from the Act. Nay, in some of the 30 Schisms whichOnuphr. in Chro. p. 50. Onuphrius reckons up in the Church of Rome, (before the word Protestant was ever heard of,) when two or three Popes did sit at once, 'twas even impossible to determine, which Pope was the true, and which the false. The Councils ofConcil. Constantiense praecipuè congregatum extinguendi schismatis Causâ, quis esset verus Pontifex, vix agnoscebat. v. Hist. Concil. à Paulo V. Edit. To. 4. p. 127. Constance andStatim illud in Controversiam venit, Num Synodus Pisana in Illos potuerit animadvertere, cùm eorum alteruter verus esset Pontifex, sed uter is esset non constaret. ibid. p. Seqq. Pisa (whereof the former, by the way, [Page] was a General Council, in the Catalogue set forth by Pope Paulus Quintus,) were utterly at a Losse in their Debates of this matter. From whence it follows unavoidably, that Mr. Cressy must not dare to avow this last notion of The present Visible Church; as well because it is not That, to which he dares say the last Recourse is to be had, as because she can too easily declare her sense in another way, than as she was ever represented by her Pastors out of all Nations, that is to say, by a General Council, which yet the present visible Church can never do, saith Mr. Cressy, chap. 9. p. 95. But when I say, he must not dare to avow this last notion of the present visible Church, to which he gives the last Recourse, and to which he ascribes Infallibility: I mean, he must not for the future, not but that for the present he dares to do it; Because he tells us expresly, p. 97. (and as dogmatically too, as without al proof,) That the present Superiours living and speaking must conclude all Controversies, their Interpretation of Scripture and Fathers, their Testimony of Tradition, must more then put to silence all contradiction of particular persons, or Churches; it must also subdue their mindes to an Assent, and this under the penalty of an Anathema, or cutting off from the body of Christ.
This is said by Mr. Cressy concerning the living and speaking Judges of his Church, Judges [Page] for the time being in every Age. Quite forgetting what he had said not long before, (p. 95.) That Reason, Inspiration, and Examples of Primitive Fathers, must joyntly make up the only Guide, which He affirms to be Infallible. For, unless they all concurr (as he had said before that, p. 93.) together with the present visible Governours (to whom he there gives a judging determining power) That which we take to be Reason, and Inspiration, and the sense of the Primitive Church, may deceive and misguide us. Now besides that this saying destroyes the former, where no less was ascrib'd to the present visible Superiours living and speaking, than here is attributed to all four Requisites in conjunction; we know that Reason may be deceiv'd, Inspiration be counterfeit by some unclean spirit, (which fallible Reason must be the Judge of) primitive Fathers subject to Error, and present Superiours much more than Primitive: And, many fallible Guides can never make up one Infallible, any more than many Planets can make one Sun, or many Acts of finite knowledge one true omniscience. For as Mr. Cressy does confess, that Infallibility and Omniscience, are incommunicable Attributes of God Himself, (p. 98.) so he imply's a contradiction, when he saith they are communicable to any creature, such as is his present visible Church. And another Contradiction as bad, or worse, when he saith that [Page] a man, although of much Ignorance, may in a sort be Omniscient within his sphere, (p. 99.) which is as if he should have said, That a man may be able to have a knowledge of all things, because he may so know them All, as to be Ignorant of some. But then, with the help of that [...], the meanest man is as omniscient, as is his Roman Catholick Church; because (within his determinate sphere) he must needs have a knowledge of All he knows; and of more than she knows the Roman Church hath no knowledge. So again when he would shew how a creature may be Infallible, though he had said that God Himself is incommunicably such, (p. 98.) he has no better a [...], than an implicit explication of an Affirmative by a Negative. The immutable God can preserve mutable creatures from actual mutation; [ibid.] thereby implying, that the Immutable cannot communicate his incommunicable Attribute of Immutability to any creature, even because he cannot possibly perfect a creature into Himself. But from actual mutation he can preserve any Creature, as well an Ignorant single man, as a whole Church Catholick. Thus by endeavouring to uphold, Mr. Cressy does throughly destroy his Doctrine: All he saith coming to this, That however God only is undeceivable, yet he is able to preserve his deceivable creatures from being actually deceiv'd. Sed quid [Page] hoc ad Iphicli Boves? The Question is not, Whether God can preserve a Church from being actually in error, (for so he can, and often does, particular Members of his Church,) But whether de facto he hath granted an Inerrability, or an Impossibility of erring, unto that which they call the Roman Catholick Church. Not whether the Church can be actually false in her opinions, but whether or no she is Infallible, or exempted by God from the passive power of giving false Judgement in points of Faith. Will Mr. Cressy so confound an Adjective in Bilis, with a participle derived from the passive preterperfect Tense, as either to argue à non actu ad non potentiam, or else to pass over from the one unto the other? Will he argue that Adam before his fall was Impeccable, because he yet was preserved from actual sin? or, that the Church was Infallible in the Apostles own Times, because she was not erroneous untill she was? He cannot sure be so destitute either of Logick or Grammar skill. I think it rather his skill to dissemble both; as finding no other way to dispute a whole Chapter for such a Doctrine, unless he either begg's or forsakes the Question.
But now to give him more Advantage than he is mindfull to give himself, when he allows so great a privilege to the present Governours of the Church in every Age, whom he [Page] will have to be the living and speaking Judges, to whom (without contradiction) all particular Churches as well as persons, Ubi supra. p. 97. must meekly yield up their Assent; Let us allow it to be his meaning, not that These are undeceivable, but that God doth still preserve them from being actually deceiv'd. Was not Pope Hildebrand himself the supreme speaking Judge, when yet theImperial. Statut. apud Goldast. Tom. 1. p. 74. Council at Wormes did set him out as a Brand of Hell? Conc. Constantien. A. D. 1414. Seff. 11. Edit. Bin. To. 7. 1036. Notoriè criminosus de homicidio, veneficio, pertin [...]x Haereticus, Simoniacus, contra Articulum de Resurrectione mortuorum dogmatizavit. — Et paulò superius, — cum Uxore fratris sui & cum sanctis moniatibus Incestum commisit p. 1035. Was not John the 23. the supreme speaking Judge of Mr Cressy's then present visible Church, when yet he openly deny'd the Immortality of the soul, and for That (with other crimes) was condemn'd by the Council then held at Constance? Were not John the 22. and Anastasius the 2. the supreme speaking Judges in their several Times, who yet were both stigmatiz'd for the Crime of Heresie? Let Mr Cressy now speak like an honest man, Were such superiours as these, then living and speaking, to conclude all controversies, to Interpret Scripture and the Fathers, to put to silence all particular Churches, to subdue mens mindes to an Assent, and this under the penalty of their being cut off from the body of Christ? Let him read his own dictates, p. 97. It will but little mend the matter, to say, The Pope is but one, and that He spake of All Superiours: Because, besides that they may All have their Byasses and Errors as well as He, in case they are all consulted [Page] with, (as they never are) 'Tis very evident that the Pope (like the Sun among the Starres) is more than All in all Cases. The greatest part of those Councils which they are pleas'd to call General, have been indeed little better than the meer properties of their Popes: which that I may not seem to say as one that loves to speak sharply, but rather as compell'd by their own Accompts of them, I shall here give an Instance in one or two.
In the last Lateran Council under Julius the 2.A brief Accompt of the last Lateran Council. and Leo the 10. The Holy Scriptures (at the first Session) are humbly laid down at his Holinesses Feet; And, an Oath being administred, are formally toucht by the Officials. The Pope (in that Session) is call'd The Prince of all the world; and (in the next) The Priest and King to be adored by all the People, as being most like to God Himself. Accordingly (in the 3d) The Kingdom of France by Pope Julius is subjected to an Interdict, and the Mart held at Lyons transferr'd to Geneva. The pragmatick Sanction is rescinded in the fourth, for the improving of the Trade of Ecclesiastical Hucksters, the buying and selling of Church-preferments. The Pope is asserted as Gods Lieutenant upon Earth, though not of equal merits. (A very signal Condescension! and to be kept in everlasting Remembrance! God is meekly acknowledg'd to be superiour to the Pope.) In the fifth Session, Julius [Page] dies, Ne sleveris Fi [...]ia Sion (ut Ep sco [...]us M [...]d usiensis affatur Papam, q [...]ia Ecce ve [...]t Leo de Tribu Juda, Radix David. [...]cce Tibi suscitavit Deus Salvatorem &c. Te, Leo B [...]atissime, Salvatorem expectamus, Te Liberatorem v [...]nturum speravimus. Concil. Lateran. ult. Sess. 6. Bin. To. 9 p. 74. (another great Condescension!) And Leo his Successor is saluted, as no less than the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David, the Saviour and Deliverer that was to come. (A pretty clinch, but a blasphemous complement, and unworthy a Bishop's mouth.) In the eighth and ninth Sessions, This Lion Roars; first against them that shall violate his Decrees in the present Council, to whom he threatens such a Sentence of Excommunication, as none but Himself could absolve them from. Next against the Emperour, Kings, and Princes, whom he chargeth not to hinder such as were coming to the Council under the penalty of incurring God's Displeasure and his own In the last of those two Sessions,Divinae Maj statis tuae conspectus, vutilanti cujus fulgore imbecilles oculi mei caligant, &c. Et paulo post, In Te uno legitimo Christi & Dei Vicario, p [...]opheticum illud debuerit [...]u [...]sus impleri, Adorabunt cum omnes Reges Terrae, omnes Gentes servient ci. Ibid. Sess. 9. p. 114, 116. Antonius Puccius tells Leo, how his Eyes are darkned by the rutilant Brightness of his Divine Majesty.—in him alone as the Vicar of God and of Christ, That saying of the Prophet ought again to have its completion, All the Kings of the Earth shall come and worship, All the Nations under Heaven shall do him service. In a word, throughout the whole Council, nothing is carried by counsel or consultation of Assessors, (for Assistants I cannot call them,) nothing by suffrages or votes from them that make it wear, the name of a General Council; But, the supreme present Judge (to use the phrase of Mr. Cressy) as an Infallible Dictator, ordained All. This is constantly the Preface to each Decree in That [Page] Council, Leo Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, approbante Concilio, &c.
So again in their last and best beloved General Council,Of the Council at Trent. All the Fathers do but prepare convenient matter for Decrees, whereunto the Pope's Fiat does give the life. Their two and twenty years contrivances do end at last inHumiliter petimus nomine dicti Concilii oecumenici Tridemini, ut Sanctitas vestra dignetur confirmare omnia & singula, &c. Edit. Bin. Tom. 9. p. 442. meek Petition, That his Holiness will vouchsafe to confirm what they had done; that is, to inform the lifeless matters they had prepared; which could not have the nature and force of Articles or Decrees, until the Pope had breathed on them the Breath of Life. So a little before That,Si in his recipiendis aliqua Difficult as ariatur, aut aliqua incideri [...]t quae Declarationem aut Finitionem postulent, — confidit sancta Synodu [...] Pon ificem curaturum —&c. viderit expedire—&c. Si necessarium judicaverit, &c. Si ei visum fuerit, &c. Ibid. p. 434. The General Council doth humbly hope, That if any Difficulty arise in the receiving of the Canons, or if any things Doubtful shall require a Definition, or Declaration, His Holiness will provide for the Necessities of the Provinces, for the Glory of God, and the Tranquillity of the Church, either by calling a General Council, if He shall judge it to be needful, or by committing the Business to such as He shall think fit to do it, or by what way soever He shall judge more commodious. All, upon the matter, both is, and must be, as He pleaseth; and when the Council is dissolv'd, He is himself Tantamount to a General Council. Indeed much more. For the Council did but propose, But He Apostolicâ Auctoritate declaramus & definimus p. 444. declares and define's by Apostolical Authority. HeFidem sine ullâ Dubitatione haberi mandamus at (que) decernimus p. 443. command's [Page] and decree's by somewhat more than Apostolical, That Faith without any Doubting be had by all to his Creed; and all under the penalty of being cut off from the Body of Christ; notwithstanding some part of his Creed is.Vide Concil. Trident. Edit. Bin. excus. Genev. A. D. 1612. Tom. 9. Sess. 4. p. 354. This, That Apocryphal writings and meer Traditions concerning Faith as well as Manners are by all to be receiv'd with as much Reverence and affection, as things proceeding from God the Holy Ghost, or from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now if a Council (as the Lateran) does only Read a Decree in Fieri, And a Pope (as the Tenth Leo) by saying Placet, does make it one in Facto esse; If a Council cannot be currant, unless it be called by the Pope, and by the Pope praesided in; yea if nothing done in it, can pass for currant, until the Pope hath approved of it, or until he hath made it become Authentick by an Act of his Will, or by a word of his Mouth; Mr. Cressy and Father Johnson who do so earnestly contend for a subcoelestial Infallibility, cannot chuse but believe (if at all they believe as well as plead it) That its real Inhaerence is in the Pope, and only said to be in the Council, because it does more become the Error, and set it off to the People with better Grace. The Reason of what I say, is very cogent in it self; and that it may be so to others, I thus endeavour to make it plain. They say that Councils are not good or currant, unless approved of by the Pope. Nor [Page] does he give his Approbation until the Council is at an end. His Approbation is after; and not before it. From whence 'tis natural to Inferr, That he approve's not of the Council, because Infallibly good, and therefore currant; (it would not then need his Approbation:) But the Council is good and currant, because He approve's it. And why should That be said, unless because He is Infallible with them that say it? Thus (I say) it is to Them, not Thus in it self. For then there would follow this other Absurdity, That if The Council hath err'd, it is because the Pope hath not approv'd it. For let him but approve, and It hath not err'd, because it hath every thing required to its Infallibility. If not, let them speak; for I argue only ad homines, and (out of very great charity) try to make them asham'd with their own Devices.
Now (to speak a gross Truth,) The Approbation of a Council, when a Council hath done with its Consultations, cannot possibly have the virtue to effect that such a Council shall not have err'd. For if it hath erred, it is erroneous, though He approve's it. If not, it is orthodox, though He reject's it. The Emperours who call'd the first and truest General Councils, did either not care for, or not expect his Approbation. Yet Those were the Councils, either not erring at all, or at least the least erring of any other.
But let us yield Mr. Cressy yet more Advantage, and suppose him only to mean, what once he saith, (for he saith so many things, that he seem's to have many, and those contradictory, meanings,)Ch. 9. p. 95. Sect. 7. A Church represented by her Pastors out of All Nations, which Pastors out of All Nations make aConcilia Generalia dicuntur ea, quibus interesse possunt & debent Episcopi totius Orbis, (nisi legitimè impediantur) & quibus nemo rectè praesidet nisi Summus Pontifex, aut alius ejus nomine. Inde enim dicuntur Oecumenica, id est, Orbis Totius Terrae Concilia. Bellarm. Controv. Tom. 1. l. 1. de Concil. c. 4. p. 1096. General Council; And that This only is the Church, to which he ascribes Infallibility. To which I answer, by two Degrees. First, by observing that he takes for granted what is false. For there was never such a Council, as to which All Nations did send their Pastors, and by consequence The Church was never so Represented; and by consequence never Infallible, if She can only be Infallible when so Represented, to wit, by the Pastors of All Nations that have Christian Churches in them. For, the first four General Councils were not such in that sense; And only were called Oecumenical, not for Bellarmine's Reason, but because they consisted of all the Pastors who were sent from Those Nations which made up all the Roman Empire, [...]. Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. To. 3. p. 50. whose Emperours by a figure were call'd the Masters of the world. Beyond the limits of the Empire, None of those, or after-Councils, did ever reach. None went thither out of Persia, India, the Inmost Arabia, and Aethiopia, wherein the Churches were never subject to the Roman Empire; Nor yet out of Britain, France, and Spain, when being parted [Page] from the Empire, They became the Peculiar of other Princes. And as the Empire grew scanty, so the Councils in proportion did grow less General. Whose Greatness is to be measur'd not by the number of the Bishops, but by the multitude of the Churches, and by the Greatness of the Regions from which they come. But since the Bishops of Rome, with other Rights of the Roman Empire, have invaded This also, of calling and praesiding in General Councils, they have been only call'd General, for being a Confluence of Pastors out of all the Papal Empire. And therefore, according to Mr Cressy, They could not possibly be Infallible, because not such, as to which All Nations did send their Pastors.
Next I answer by observing, that the learned'st Romanists cannot agree about the Nature or Number of General Councils. For, first as to the Nature, The General Councils of the Romanists areQuaedam sunt ab Apostolicâ sede app obata, at (que) ab Eccl [...]siâ universâ recepta, quaedam omni [...]o reprobata quaedam partim reprobata partim approbata, quaedam nec approbata, nec reprobata. Bellarm. ubi supra. p. 1097. thus divided by themselves! Some (say they) are approved by the Sea Apostolical and received by the Catholick Church. 2 Some are absolutely reprobated. 3 Some are reprobated in part, and in part approved. 4 Some are neither reprobated, nor approved, Now since each of these sorts is said by Romanists to be General, and General Councils in the general are also said by the same to be Infallible; What do they but say in effect and substance, The Church represented in General Councils is either [Page] absolutely Infallible, as in the first species of Geral Councils) or altogether fallible, (as in the second;) or partly Infallible, and partly fallible, (as in the third); or neither fallible, nor infallible, (as in the fourth.) If General Councils cannot err, Why do they reprobate, or doubt any of them? If they have sufficient reason both to reprobate some, and to doubt of others, Why do they callp. 1105, 1107, 1109. Et inde constat, locutum esse Bellarminum ex sententiâ suâ, quia sic claudit Partitionem. Quod membrum postremum in Conciliis particularibus potissimum locum habet. p. 1097. Ergo membra priora in Generalibus, ut & postremum aliquatenùs, etiamsi non potissia ùm. General Councils? or, if General Councils can be doubted of at all, and that by Them, by what Infallible Token shall they know, either that the Councils are truly General and Genuine; or at least, that being such, they are Infallible? Of Bellarmine's 18 General Councils, which are his first and best species, he proves the Approvedness and validity by the Pope's praesiding in, or approving of them. His General proof is but this, [They are approved of by the Pope, and receiv'd by Papists.] And what is this but to beg the Question? The first 8 Councils he proves to be such, by theDist. 16. Can. sancta octo. apud Gratian. p. 60, 61. Decree of the Pope. The Nine that follow he proves to be approved, Because the Pope praesided in them. And the last was confirm'd by Plus Quartus. So that a Council's [...] is derived from the Pope, and depend's upon his Pleasure. But now of those 18. there is a very great difference. For the first four only were received and rever'd by Gregory the Great, as were the four Gratian. Decret. par. 1. Dist. 5. Hac spectat Epist. Vigilii Papae ad Eu [...]ychium, apud Concil. Edit. Bin. To. 8. p. 593. Gospels of Jesus Christ. Which Reverence would have been due to the other [Page] fourteen, had they been of as great Authority; as they needs must have been, had all been aequally Infallible, in their opinion who own them All. And yet the later Councils had been more valid than the former, if tis not A [...]s (que) Romani Pontificis Authoritate Synodum aliquibus congregare non licet. Ibid. Dist. 17. lawful to call a Council, without the Authority of the Pope, as Marcellus his Decretal affirm's it is not. Secondly for the number of their approved General Councils, I see not how it can be agreed. For besides that theConcil. Florent. Sess. 5, & 6. Greeks receive no more than the first seven, TheMagdeburg. Cent. 8. c. 9. & Cent. 9. c. 9. Lutherans but six, The Eutychians in Africa no more than three, The Nestorians in the East no more than two, and the Polonian Trinitarians no more than one, (which Difference is acknowledged by Bellarmine Himself,): I say, besides This, I wonder when Bellarmine will be ever agreed with Pope Paul the fifth. The former rejecting the Council at Constance from the number of the Approved, which yet theV. Concil. Gen. a Paulo V. Edit. Tom. 4. Later does admit of with equal Reverence. It was reprobated indeed by a worse than it self, to wit the Council at Florence next following after; But for decreeing that a Council was above the Pope, for which it ought to have been approv'd. And abating those things which consist not with the Haughtiness (but the just Dignity) of the Popes, It is as generally received as any other. Yet we need no better Argument to prove such a Council above a Pope, and the gross fallibility [Page] of both together, than an Historical Accompt of That one Council, as we find it set down by Pope Paul the fifth. The Third at Constantinople, which is commonly reckoned the sixth General Council, was by the 14th at Toledo, Can. 7. esteemed the Fifth. Implying the former under Vigilius, not to have been one of the General Councils, which yet with other Councils does pass for such without Question. And so much for the number of general Councils.
Last of all, let Mr. Cressy be allow'd to mean at the most Advantage, That his General Councils are said to be Infallible, not because they cannot, but do not err; for so he most improperly, but yet most kindly help's out himself,Socrat. Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. Sozomen. l. 1. c. 23. Niceph. l. 8. c. 19. chap. 9. p. 98. But does he not think it was an Error in the first Council of Nice, (as in the third of Constantinople) to assent to Paphnutius his [...] and patronizing the marriage of Priests, as both Socrates, and Sozomen, & the Roman Dist. 32. Can. Nicen. V. Concil. Constantin. III. Can. 13. Concil. Elib. can. 36. Decree do alike affirm? At least the Council of Eliberis (which was contemporary with That) Mr. Cressy will say was in an Error, for declaring it unlawful, to paint in the windows or walls of Churches, Concil. Nicen. 2. Act 4. Concil. Constant. quartum decrevit cundem Imaginum cultum Edit. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1046. what is the object of Adoration. And so much the rather will he believe it to be an Error, because the second Nicene general Council, decreed that Images are to be worship't, and denounced an Anathema [Page] to all that doubt the Truth of it. Does he not think it was an Error in the Council of Chalcedon, Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. Can 28. Qui Canon genuinus est, non obstante B [...]nii subterfugio Pudendo. to Decree unto the Bishop of Constantinople, even in Causes Ecclesiastical, an aequality of privileges with the Bishop of Rome? Or does he not think it was an Error in theConcil. Constantinop III. Act. 13. Vide Notas in vitam Honor. Edit Bin. Tom. 4 p. 572. sixth General Council, to condemn Pope Honorius as a Monothelite, and to decree that his Name should be razed out of the Church's Diptychs; [...] &c. Concil. Florent. Definit. Edit. Bin. To. 8. p. 854. seeing another General Council, since held at Florence, hath defined the Pope to be the High-Priest over all the world, the Successor of St. Peter, Christ's Lieutenant, The Head of the Church, The Father and Teacher of all Christians, and one to whom in St. Peter our Lord Jesus Christ did deliver a full Power, as well to GOVERN, as to feed the Universal Church? And did accordingly exauctorate the Council at Constance, for seating a Council above a Pope? Or is it not thought by Mr Cressy, that This Florentine Council was in an Error, in Granting the Roman Church a Power of adding to the Creed, which the General Council of Chalcedon had forbidden to be done under the Penalty of a Curse? as wasibid. Sess. 5. p. 593. observed and urg'd by Pope Vigilius Himself, to Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople? Let Mr. Cressy but compare the sixth General Council (whose famous Canons were made in Trullo,) with the Tridentine Canons, and the General practice of his Church. [Page] And sure I am, He will acknowledge that the one or the other hath foully err'd. It was decreed in the sixth, [...], &c. Conc. Constant. III. Can. 13. To. 5. p. 326. Edit. Bin. To. 5. p. 326. That married men without scruple should be admitted into the Priesthood, and this without any condition of abstaining thence-forwards from cohabitation, lest men should seem to offer Contumely unto God's holy Institution Yea (which is most to be observ'd) This was a Canon made professedly [...], &c.— [...], &c. ibid. p. 325, 326. against the Canon of the Church of Rome, whereunto is confronted the antient Canon, which is there said to be of Apostolical Perfection. Here the Doctrin and Practice of the Church of Rome is condemn'd by a Council, which is owned to be General by the same Church of Rome. The Church of Rome is also condemn'd by the same Ibid. p. 338. General Council (in its 55 Canon,) and commanded to conform to the 65 Canon of the Apostles (from which they had scandalously departed) under two great Poenalties therein express't. To all which if I shall add, How the 8th General Council made a peremptory Decree, [...]. Concil. Constant. IV. Act. 9. Can. 3 Edit. Bin. Tom. 7. p. 977. That the Image of Christ is to be worship't as the Gospel of God, That whosoever adore's it not, shall never see his Face at his second coming, (never at least by their Goodwill,) That the Pictures of Angels and all the Saints are in like manner to be adored, And that all who think otherwise are to be Anathematiz'd; I hope Mr. Cressy and Father Johnson are not such Lovers of Idolatry and Contradiction, as not to [Page] know and to acknowledge the Fallibility of their Church in a general Council. And as, on the one side, Their stedfast Belief That She cannot err, is enough to confirm them in all their Errors; So, to convince them on the other side of that one Error, will make them ready both to see, and renounce the Rest. That it may seem to be a vain, or a needless Thing, for any man to be lavish of Time, or Labour, in a particular Ventilation of other controverted Points, whilst This of Infallibility remain's untouch't, or undecided. For if we shew them the Absurdities of Bread and Wine being transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ; or of being so transmuted into Human Flesh and Blood, as to retain both the Colour, Touch and Tast, and all other Adjuncts of Bread and Wine; or of its so beginning now to be (in the Act of Consecration) the numerical Body of a crucified Jesus, as to have been the very same under Pontius Pilate, as well as in the Virgin's Womb; or of its beginning to be as often, and of as many several Ages, as the Priests at their Altars shall please to make it; or of its being the same Body, whether eaten by a Christian, or by a Dog: They will defend themselves with This, That though 'tis absurd and impossible, yet it is necessarily true, because 'tis taught by That Church which cannot deceive or be deceiv'd. Whereas, if once we can convince them that she is able to be deceiv'd, who had taught them to [Page] believe she is undeceivable, (and that in matters of greatest moment,) They cannot chuse but disapprove and forsake her too, as the greatest Deceiver in all the world.
Thus I have done what you desir'd, if not as amply, or as well, yet at least as my Time (or my want of Time rather) would give me leave. Had I the Tithe of that Leisure I once injoy'd, I might have long ago reply'd to Mr. Cressy's whole Book, which I can hardly now say I have wholly read. Nor indeed do I intend to consider more of it then here I have; partly because I am inform'd that the whole is undertaken by other men; partly, becaule I am prohibited both by mine Enemies and my Friends, (though in several senses, and to several ends); but chiefly, because I am forbidden by less-dispensable Employments. For although I must confess, I think the Task very easie, and such as hath nothing in it of difficult, besides the length, which Mr. Cressy's Misadventures would make unavoidable, upon so many and ample subjects, (so as his strength doth chiefly lie in the number and nature of his Infirmities, which nakedly to observe, were to write a Just Volume) yet supposing a Camel already loaded with the maximum quod sic that his back will bear, the Addition of a Feather may serve to break it. Some may think me Insufficient, others Indulgent to my Ease, (and I am as careless, as they unkind.) But I have Witnesses to my Comfort, [Page] both within, and without me, And God above is my Witness too, That I have little or no Time either to read or write Books, but what I rob Nature of, even by stealing it from my Sleep. Which being as needful as the Oyl whereby the Lamp is kept burning, my Light of Life cannot chuse but be very Dim, and by many such Night-works would be extinguish't I know, there are who would teach me, how to live without sleeping, (as Hierocles his Scholar taught his Horse a Thing like it;) But they must pardon mye Refusal to put such a Trick into frequent practice, the very learning of which is enough to kill me. Yet Sir, you see I was resolv'd to watch a Night in His Service, in whom The vigilant D [...] Sherman is faln asleep. And now it would be high Time to bid you heartily Good Night, but that I see it begin's to be Bright Morning. And the same Gallicinium which calls up others to their Labour, does more significantly bid me make haste to rest
To the Reader.
WHo can do that for us as to tell us what every Scholar should do? It is easie to know what they should do Morally; they should mind the good of the Church, not dicendo pluraliter: but the question or quest is, what they should doe in way of Scholastical imployment, as such.
It is true, in Nature, Ʋnumquodque est propter suam operationem, Every thing is for its proper Operation; but what then shall they doe who are good for nothing? Shall they do nothing? No. It is yet, it may be, good for them to doe Optimum quod sic. Onely ingage in Controversies they should not.
Neither did I ever intend to dip a pen in that inke, which is for those who can dip their pen [...], in understanding, as he said; such as have for it a body, books, an head, an heart too: I think I can do the less, because I think so, ‘—possunt quia posse videntur.’
The Case therefore is thus,
A paper was brought by a Roman Catholike to a Lady then in Norwich, for an Answer; She sent for me then there, wished me to Peruse it and Answer it; I shrunk my shoulders; she urged; I took it or undertook it, returned soon a short Answer; He replyed, I rejoyned: He then sent me a Treatise; I sent an Answer to it; He sent another Treatise; I began an answer to that: but before I had done, He had done in the Poets phrase, [...].
This the Narrative.
And now have I more work, to satisfie some Demands. And the first is, Why I was somewhat long in answering the second Treatise?
To this I can say, First, that it might have been longer ere I had Answered the first, [Page] because a Treatise; Then length is answerable to length. And also I do freely Confesse that as I have too much of this [...], which unfits me for Speech; so have I too little of that [...], which should fit me for Expedition: Neither could I ever closely apply my self to this vast and voluminous Learning which others pretend to; but have been a rambler (if not at my Book yet) from my Book, upon the saddle, the seat of Health as he called it. And besides, I have had other work in the Church. Moreover, though others upon the 5. of November did preach, yet I was a good while in durance for preaching upon the 5. of November.
A second demand is this, why I should publish the papers? To this may I say with St. Basil, [...] but it seemed, an Answer was looked for; the party from whom it came, dead; the cause publike; the first paper an Interpretative Challenge; some of his party have vaunted of a Conquest; some have wished the Papers abroad; I had power over my own papers, which could not goe out without his; It is somewhat ingenuous to give some account of our time out of the Colledge, though those who took our places should also in reason have [Page] taken these pains. And lastly, advised I was hereunto by two Bishops of Famous memory, who saw part of the papers. One of them the late Bishop of Norwich; whose Life indeed was not so short as his Style: But since his Style was so smooth and sweet that he might be said to have written his own Life in it, What use might he have been of now, if God had pleased? The other the late Bishop of Exeter, who was: [...]; who wanted nothing to make us happy now, but life; who was ‘ [...].’ And the former of these gave me his Letter for my Encouragement.
A third Question then, why so long ere they came out. To this may be Answered, that though they might have come out sooner, they were, it seems, reserved for better times. Sunt haec Trajani tempora, in Tacitus's sense. A Discourse of Faith, keeps now some time with the Defender of the Faith. And very good time it is for others who have been true to their King, to shew that they have not been false to Religion; and that they have not leered, as some have suspected them, towards the Vatican. And yet also this is not very probable, Ex natura rei: for if Kings would think upon [Page] it, there might be no Popes; since if Popes could well help it, there should be no Kings.
But this also can I affirm, that the Tract of years, since it was done, hath not altered or swelled the Book by one word in the body of it; though somewhat might have been mended and somewhat might have been added.
And if yet great exception be taken at the Book, because it is so great; I must say, that I know who could have prevented this: For if my Adversary would have spared the Debate about the Faith of the Canon, he needed not to have blotted so much paper about the Question in Effect, such as this, whether the Objectum quod might be the Objectum quo, or the Medium of its own Knowledge. And yet it may be, he hath gotten nothing by it; since the Church without Scripture, signifies little.
Me thinks if the understanding in its assent were a natural Subject to the will, it would not be improper for me to say, that I would believe much for Peace, in reverence to that of Saint Basil, [...] but since the understanding looks for Divine Conviction in this Act, we must have it, as to Faith Divine from God, either in the Proposition, or in the Conclusion.
And therefore I desire to study Truth impartially, neither rejecting all that is said, lest I reject that which is true; nor receiving all that is said, lest I receive that which is false; and I should be Disposed rather to like the matter for truth, than truth for the matter of it: Because otherwise, we love truth but [...], and not upon its own account, as such.
So that if this their Infallibility (pretended) were either proved or quitted, we might rejoyce in more hope of Peace to Christendome. If it were sufficiently proved, we should presently yeild; if it were quitted, they might possibly yield. And I would the Pope would turn Patriarch again but untill it be Proved, and thank God for the Nicene [...], and no more.
To my Adversary, if I have shewed my self at all uncivil, I am very sory for it: and what unhandsome Reflexions there are made by him (if any) upon me, I put up upon good account. If the pen at any time makes a disorderly sally out unto a perstriction of the person, it is a Liberty which I had rather give than take. And his Papers are as well, and as whole printed as mine, and I am glad that they are printed in the same character, which is not usual.
And if I have made in mine any blots (as very likely I have) about Isidor Clarius, or any other Author, or Matter, I am very ready to acknowledge it; it being not in my way to pretend to infallibilitie; nor my mind to affect the Reputation of him that was denominated [...].
It is enough to me to have given any hints to others for better use. If I have found any smooth stone out of the Brook of Scripture, Let some able Pastour of the Church throw it at that Roman Goliah; and let it sink into his Head; and let Saint Jerom's Sword cut off not his Head, but his Headship. My inability yet will doe me this good, that it doth strongly prove their Infallibility not to be good; which such a Punie of the Church can go near to discompose and ruffle.
Towards an Epistle this sufficient; since I think my self not worthy to give any advice. Onely by my experience I may remind thee, that it is time for us to knit the vein again of the Spouse of Christ, in the breach whereof our Adversaries do so much triumph. This Ʋlysses would have, believe it thou canst not serve God more, nor the Roman better.
And I wish that by the light of this conflict thou mightst see that the Roman and the Sectarie are both upon the Extremes; and that the Church of England, as to Religion and Government, goes, [...]
So then, Reader, since my Adversary hath also appealed unto thee, unto thee let him goe. As he in his Rhetoriques. l. 1. [...]
A Letter to his friend.
I Have with much eagerness and delight run over your solemical discourse, in answer to an interpretative kind of Challenge made by a confident, but close adversary; whose wit I cannot but commend, as in hiding his name, so in picking out so fit a time for the scattering of his insinuating papers; when our so lamentable distractions yeild him so favourable an advantage; So have we known ill neighbours take opportunity of their pilfring, when the house is on fire: So did the crafty Amalekite fall upon the hind most of Israel, when they were faint, feeble, and tired with their travel. Although herein he hath made a good amends, and merited our thanks, in that his bold intimations have drawn you forth into the light, and fetcht from you this your abundantly satisfactory Answer for his full Conviction, and the settling of unstable minds in this busie Controversie. Certainly, there is not a greater Imposture in all Rome, then in the name and plea of the Church; as our Learned Bishop Morton hath long since laid it out, or that wins more of weak and injudicious soules: For what a short cut is here of all controversies in Religion? what a sure-seeming refuge for the soule? what a present and sensible Eviction of all gainsayers? The Catholike Church cannot erre; The Roman Church is the Catholike; The Dictates of that Church are as evident as infallible; The Scriptures are ambiguous; The Church is clear and conspicuous; we know where Rome stands; In the communion of that onely is salvation; Out of that Ark we drown; within it is perfect safety: May this be made good, Who would trouble his heart or his head with any further disquisition of truth? Who need to care for any other spiritual priviledge, then to be free of Rome? O easie security of our Faith! O cheap charter of assured Salvation! Whiles these plausible impostors goe thus about to flatter their [Page] ignorant, and credulous Clients into a dangerous, if not deadly, misbelief, putting this broken reed into their hands; you have thus seasonably discovered, and checked their fraud, and cleerly shewn to these simple and mis-taught souls, how unsafe it is for them to trust to so crazie and perilous a supportation, which must needs in stead of easing, wound them. I shall therefore hereupon expect much good issue from this your well bestowed labour: Why should not this your so convictive discourse work effectually upon an ingenuous adversary, to win him to the acknowledgement of so well-manifested a truth? and settle those wavering minds, which seemed to be a little shaken with so strongly-confident suggestions, and prevent the danger of seducement in those poor souls, whose simplicity exposeth them to the subtle temptations of misguidance into errour. Such blessing of success I wish to your learned, and charitable work, and to your self, (who have ever approved your self so well deserving and pious a son of the Church of England) some better encouragement then these times have yet afforded either to you, or to
POSITION.
IT is not sufficient (to make one a Catholick in point of faith) that he believe the same things which the Catholick Church believeth, unless the Catholick Church be also the Ground of his belief: for whosoever doth believe any point upon no other Ground, but only because it seems to his private Judgment to be contained in Scripture, or to be in it self true, yea though he should believe in this manner every thing which the Church believeth, yet he would not be a Catholick, and so may be damned for want of faith.
And the Reason is, because seeing that faith is, to believe a thing because God revealeth it, and that there is no infallible way (without a Miracle) whereby God his Revelation cometh to us, but onely by the Churches Proposition; it followeth, that we cannot believe any thing certainly upon the Motive of God his Revelation, unless our belief be likewise grounded upon the Churches Proposition.
Wherefore the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing because she proposeth it: for all other perswasions of our own discourse are resolved at last into our particular Judgments, or else into the Judgments of other particular Men; and so cannot breed in us Catholick and divine faith; but only Opinion, or humane belief.
ANSVVER.
THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition, and a Reason, and a Conclusion. To these in order.
1 First, The Supposition, It is not sufficient to make one a Catholick, that he believe the same things that a Catholick doth believe, unless the Catholick Church be the Ground also of his belief, &c. (as in the Amplification of it.)
This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians, and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination; so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion, or the Opinion of a private Man, but as to the General Tenet of their Church, in the matter of it.
In the Terms, the word Catholick is to be distinguished: for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholick, viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority, It is very true, that None is such a Catholick; but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal; and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith, yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome. But if there be a true Sense, upon ancient Account also, of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church; then there may be (in a true sense) a Catholick now, who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith: For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also, there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof: And that it was, will be made good, if it be desired, by several Testimonies.
2 But secondly, give it, suppose it, that None is a Catholick in a right sense, but he that believeth what the Church believeth, because the Church believeth it; yet the Romane will not gain his purpose thereby, unless we would [Page 3] grant this Supposition also, That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church, which indeed is meant in the Paper, though wisely not expressed. But this supposition (that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church) is not to be yielded, neither in regard of Comprehension, for that makes a contradiction; nor in regard of Dominion neither, for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority: this needs no disproof from us, till it hath a proof from them.
And thirdly, If we should stand up to all that their 3 Church (in particular) doth propose, and if we should assent to it upon their Account, we might be damned, not for our want of faith, but for Excess of faith in the Object Material, and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object: For we should believe more then is true, if we should believe whatsoever they believe, and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed. And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive, which is not the Authority of their Church (as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason.)
The Reason hath in it somewhat true, somewhat false: True, that faith is, to believe a thing because God revealeth it: False, that there is no Infallible way (without a Miracle) of his Revelation coming to us, but by their Church (which they suppose to be the Church) its Proposition. For if the question be This, how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church, upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith? Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof? In the Authority of the Church of Rome, or not? We are to believe that (they say) which God hath revealed; but the Cause of our belief must be, because the Church proposeth it. So then, we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony; and we must resolve all into this, that the Church of Rome is the right Church, although it be neither a Revelation, nor a natural Principle, such as this, that The Whole is [Page 4] greater then the Part; which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome, Greater is the Authority of the world, then of a City, Orbis, quam Urbis. [S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium.] Wherefore, if the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing because she proposeth it, (as is said in the Conclusion) yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome: For this (in proportion) would be to resolve our Perswasions into the Judgment of particular Men, because a Particular Church; which (according to the Paper) makes no Catholick faith, but an Opinion, or humane belief.
REPLY.
IN the Paper received, the Position which I gave, It is not sufficient, &c. is disliked, because it makes the Catholick Church the Ground of our belief; but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike, or any thing said against it, but what to me seems very strange, and is this: If there be a true sense, upon ancient account also, of a Catholick, who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church, &c.
To which I answer, that I would fain know, what Catholick upon ancient Account, did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church; or indeed, how can I account him a Catholick (without a palpable Contradiction) that doth not believe the Catholick Church?
S. Iren. (l. 3. c. 4.) saith, We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church, seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her (as into a rich Treasure-house, or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept) all things which are of truth; that every man that will, may take out of her the [Page 5] drink of life. For this is the Entrance of life, but all the rest are Thieves and Robbers: for which cause they are verily to be avoyded. But those things which are of the Church, are with great diligence to be loved, and the tradition of truth is to be received.
And the said Iren. (l. 1. c. 3.) telleth us, that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith, and that which they preached.
S. Cypr. (Ep. ad Cornel.) avoucheth, that the Church alwayes holdeth that which she first knew. See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium.
And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church, that he sticked not to say (cont. Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum, c. 5.) I would not believe the Gospel, except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto. Moreover, disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Hereticks (l. 1. cont. Cresc.) he useth this discourse, Although of this (that the baptisme of Hereticks is true baptism) there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures, yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures, when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church, which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend: That because the Scripture can not deceive, whosoever doth fear lest that he be deceived through the Obscurity of this question, may ask Counsel touching it of the Church, whom without any doubt the Scripture it self doth shew.
The same S. Aug. (l. 4. de Trin. c. 6.) saith, No lover of peace will be against the Church.
And (Ep. 118. c. 5.) he plainly terms it, Most insolent madness, to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth.
I will insist no longer upon the Testimony of the Fathers (of which I might pour a whole shower against you) lest I receive the ordinary Answer, that this their Opinion was one of their Navi, Spots, or Blemishes, and therefore shall be rejected; [Page 6] but will [...]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) [Page 1] 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.
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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 S [...]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 [Page 8] a belief that there is a Catholique Church (whereof part is triumphant in Heaven, part on Earth expectant) and to professe my self to belong to the Catholique Church, is not inclusive of your sense, that the Catholique Church is the ground of our belief. We believe the Catholique Church grounded in the Scripture, or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone, as Saint Paul speaks, Ephes. 2.20.
Secondly, This is not to your purpose, because the Catholique Church, as it is an object of Belief, must be considered as invisible; whereas you intend the Church as visible, whose proposals we must receive and submit our understanding unto. For the Invisible Church, or Church as Invisible, cannot order us in our Belief, because, as such, it is not known to us.
I come now to your Testimonies.
And your first witnesse is Saint Irenaeus.
Answ. We yeild all to Saint Irenaus, nothing to you. We say, we ought not to seek amongst others the truth, which we may easily take and receive from the Church, &c. Yes, because the Church is serviceable to the truth, by way of Ministery to deliver the Word of Truth, to keep the Word of Truth, to uphold the Word of Truth. And so we acknowledge the Church to be a sufficient Treasury of Truth, because we have therein the Scriptures. But the Treasury doth not make the Money true nor currant: for it is possible that there may be false Money in the Treasury. Therefore we must not take it to be lawfull, because it cometh out from thence: and so the Scripture is not made true to us, or the sense of it evidently credible to us, because it is in the Church. But we must look whose Image and Superscription the Doctrine hath, and whether it be right coyn or not; and it may seem to be of the right stamp and yet not. Therefore saith Origen in his 34. Hom. upon Matth. All Money, 1. Every word that [Page 9] hath the Royal stamp of God, and the Image of his Word upon it, is lawful. Therefore we must bring it to the Word for trial. We confesse we may take out of her the drink of Life; yes, but as out of a cistern, such water as cometh from the Fountain, the Scripture: and we drink out of the Scripture the Water of Life, as Tertullian in his Prescriptions. We deny not this to be the entrance of Life, because we have here the means of grace administred.
And all without the Church we say are thieves and robbers, and they ought to be avoyded. Yes, All without the bosome of the Catholick Church, which would break her Peace, and rob her Treasury, are as thieves and robbers, and ought to be avoyded. We grant that those things which are of the Church, as being true from Scripture, in points of faith; or not repugnant to Scripture in things of Discipline, are with great diligence to be loved. And we allow it, that the tradition of Truth is to be received. Yes, thus, the tradition of Scripture, the word of Truth, or the Truth delivered in writing; for so Tradition not seldome signifieth. Or tradition of Truth, which is according to Scripture, as the Apostles Creed. Not that whatsoever is delivered should be Truth, (as you would have it) but whatsoever Truth is delivered, should be received. This is all that place as seemeth to me will afford.
Your second Testimony from the same Father, may it self answer the Objection of the former, and may confirm my answer. Onely let me adde that he speaketh of the Church then purer then now. If you will have more said to this, you may find it in Saint Cyprians authority, which you produce next.
The Church (Catholick) alwayes holdeth, (not maketh) that which she first knew. Where? in Scripture. Where else? And where the Church holds that which it thus knew, we hold with it, and are beholden to the Church for holding it forth to us. The Church may inform us of it; but it doth not certifie it to us: therefore [Page 10] doth not infallibly conveigh it (the Truth) to us: therefore is not the ground of Faith. The Office of the Church is as a Candlestick to hold the Light of the Word of Truth. And moreover, though is did alwayes hold that which it knew, might it not also hold somewhat which she did not know? Though it did hold that which was true, might it not hold that which was false in other things? As the Church of Rome holds many things which are true (wherein we differ not) and also many things false, wherein she exceeds the Catholick Faith, as in regard of Object. Now put case therefore that that ancient Church near the Apostles times did not hold any point false, but did hold Every point true: yet even from hence nothing will be inferred sufficiently to your purpose, unlesse you can prove that it was appointed by God to be the ground of Faith by an impossibility of errour in any particular. Such is to be the ground of our Faith: which is wanting in the Church, not privatively, as if it had been ever promised; but Negatively, because not promised to the Church after the Apostles times. If it were possible that the Church might not erre, yet this would not make us rest our Faith in it. Faith hath no sure footing in such contingencies of Truth; unlesse you prove a non-possibility of erring, you doe nothing.
But we come now to the signal testimony of this kind, that of Saint Austin, I would not beleeve the Gospel, unlesse the authority of the Church did move me.
To which I answer, First, if the testimonies of the other Fathers be defective in clearnesse or fulnesse as to this matter, the testimony of one single Father (though excellent) will not amount to the Verdict of the whole Church: and you have no Fathers yet for you, for any thing I see.
Secondly, Take this passage by it self, and it seems to speak high, but consider it with the tenour of his discourse in the whole chapter, and it is like you will begin to [Page 11] think that it comes out from him in some heat of spirit to overcome his adversary.
Thirdly, you will be pleased to give me leave to use a Criticisme, which admitted according to the reasonablenesse of it, will somewhat change the property of this suffrage. It appeareth by compare of places in African writers, that (as is observed) their manner was to expresse the tense more then past by the imperfect; and also that he in other places must so be understood. And if so here, then it must refer to him as when he was a Manichee; he was moved then, as such, by the authority of the Church to the embracing of the Gospel. And so we grant that the authority of the Church doth move to beleeve the Scriptures. But this cometh not to the case in hand, which is intended for particular points of faith, whether we should ground our faith of them in the Scripture, and not in the proposal of the Church. Neither is this an universal way (as is pretended) of coming to the beleef of the Scriptures by the commendation of the Church: for some have been added to the Church immediately from the word, as in the second of the Acts, at the preaching of Saint Peter; as is noted.
And yet fourthly, mark the terms. It is not said I would not believe the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Church did cause me, but unlesse the authority of the Church did move me. And thus this Testimony doth very well agree with our Opinion. The authority of the Church might move him, although he did ground his 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 [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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, [Page 15] 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 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, [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 tis 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, as to his own person, but not in matters of Faith as to the Church.
I beleeve that the Church is the Spouse of Christ, and that she is without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, as to that part which is in Heaven, and that the other part of the Church as invisible which is not yet in Heaven shall be without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, when it cometh up to Heaven. But I do not beleeve that that Text is meant [Page 19] of the Church visible. For all here glorious, or none: not all glorious here, therefore none. For you find it in the Text, that it is to be presented as a glorious Church, namely as in the whole. But you will not say, that every Member of the visible Church is here glorious without spot, without wrinkle or any such thing.
If you do say so, you contradict Bellarmin in his third Book of the Militant Church, the second chapter, who there includes in his Definition of the Church visible, even Reprobates wicked and ungodly men; and requires there no internal virtue for the constitution of a Member of the Church, but onely an external profession of Faith, and communion of Sacraments. And besides you know glory, which is a perfection of Grace, doth not belong to the way, but the Country in Heaven. And besides, if you will not beleeve me in such an Exposition, beleeve your Estius, who withIn his Retractations, p. 9. Ed. Frob. but this Quotation not added in my copy to him. Saint Austin, understands it, upon good Reason of the Church invisible; as you may see in Estius Comment upon the place. And here by the way we have another Testimony of your own against you, if you account your Argument from this Text sufficient to your cause. And we have St. Austins authority to boot, as Estius quotes him. And moreover Holynesse is no formal principle of our direction, especially in points of Faith. It is Holy because it follows, and as it follows the Rule, and so should we in faith and manners. And therefore if it were to be understood of the Visible Church (as it is not) yet you conclude nothing for your turn upon this consideration.
To hasten, the next Text is formerly urged, the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth. Yet squeeze it, and presse it, and make the best use of it you can, it will not afford your inference you would make from it.
For first, some, and also very reasonably, will refer this Expression not to the Church, but to the Mystery of Godlinesse [Page 20] which follows; and so they make it as an Hebrew form of setting out some high point and grand Doctrine; and then it goes thus: A Pillar and Ground of Truth, and without Controversie, a great Mystery of Godliness is this, (namely) God manifested in the flesh, &c. If so, your interesse in it is sunk, and indeed the copulative, [And] (and without Controversie) doth not seem so well and so close to knit else. But it being given, not granted, that that Criticisme is not sufficient, what of all that? For Saint Irenaeus, as before, gives this Eulogy to the Scripture. The Scripture gives it to the Church. Now to which doth this propertie belong first and absolutely? To the Scripture or to the Church? Not to the Church, for the Church hath it from the Scripture. Now that which hath it first, hath its absolutely, and independently upon that which follows: therefore the Scripture is the absolute Pillar and ground of Truth. Then there Faith hath sure footing; there it sits down, there it rests; on that Ground, upon that Pillar. The Church then hath this Title but subordinately; and what it saith cannot bind, but conditionately to that which is the absolute Ground and Pillar of Truth For the Truth is the Pillar and Ground of the Church, as Saint Chysostome saith upon the place.
Take it then of the Catholick Church (not Roman) The Text doth more set out the Office of the Church, then the authority. It doth hold, it doth propose, it doth uphold the Truth; but this doth not convince or evince, that whatsoever the Church doth hold, we should also hold, and upon that account also; as if God had appointed the Church infallibly to conveigh to us whatsoever Truth; and nothing but Truth. And therefore may we and ought we to search the Scriptures, as our Sav [...]our speaks, John 5.39. and by them examine whatsoever the Church saith, as those of Beraea did, that which [Page 21] was said by Saint Paul, and they commended for it.
And therefore we cannot believe the Definitions of the Church upon its own word. Nay, can we also say, that God doth now give unto the Church such assistance, as then, which was noted before? and therefore we distinguish times, not thinking there should be as much said of the Church now, as when it included the Apostles; and therefore supposing that the Church then did hold all that was true, and nothing contrary: yet we cannot say it of the Church now, and therefore is not the cause of Faith, under whose authority it must also passe, beside the Divine Revelation to make it Catholique. For the Church is conserved by the Truth, as Estius also upon the place, then thus; where the ground of the Catholique Church is, there is the ground of Catholique Faith: The Scripture is the ground of the Catholique Church, unlesse it be conserved by some other principle then by which it is constituted. And it is conserved by the Truth, saith he, and thy word is Truth, saith our Saviour, John 17.17. And whereas he sayes, that the Truth sustaineth the Church, and the Church sustaineth the Truth, and so one is the cause of the other; we answer, this is not availeable for you. For in the same kinde of cause it cannot be, for then we are in a circle, but the Truth sustains the Church, so as to continue it in its principles: the Church sustains the Truth but by way of ministery, which doth not make it to be a principle of Faith, no not to us.
Neither do the other Texts speak for you as you would have them. If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, it doth not follow that then Catholique Faith must be built upon the proposalls [Page 22] of the Church. Nothing shall prevail to the Condemnation of those, who belong to the Church of God, as invisible, and nothing shall prevail, not the Gates of Hell, against the Church visible, so as somewhere or other there shall not be some who shall professe the Christian Doctrine and Worship sufficiently to salvation.
The next Text speaks towards Excommunication, which comes little into the question: for the authority of the Church may proceed to Censure, although we be not bound, upon peril of want of Faith to submit our understandings to the definitions of the Church. As to the authority we may submit, so as to endure the censure, though we do not submit our judgements, as to believe the definitions.
As to the next place of Scripture, 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 [Page 23] 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. [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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, 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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 your self. See how you now differ from your selfe. Before, the ground of Believing was the authority of the Church: now the authority of God revealing the cause of their belief. Before, you concluded, Faith consisted in submitting the understanding, and adhering to the Church, and in believing every thing, because she proposeth it: now it is the authority of God revealing, which causes their faith to be Divine. As for the term, thus; the formal object is such, under which, and in respect whereunto, any thing proceedeth; if then Gods Revelation cometh not to us under the Proposal of the Church, or as proposed by the Church, then the cause is lost; if it doth, then grant me my term, and affirm with me that the Pontificians hold so. If not, they are better then you. And what means else their implicite faith, unlesse we are to believe every thing as the Church believeth it (and because the Church proposeth it as you said) and if we be to beleive every thing as the Church believe it, then is the Church the formal object of their faith; since they are also bound not to doubt, but simply to obey, as Bellarmine tells us in his fourth Book of the Roman Bishop, 5. chap.
The other term you find fault with is, excesse of faith, You taxe it as improperly spoken: But surely it will passe without any Grain of Salt or of allowance, if we consider that Faith may be compared as to a particular object, and so there is not an Excesse of Faith as to that: but then it may be compared as to many objects, and so, though we do not more believe one thing then [Page 31] we should, if we should indeed believe it, yet may we believe more then we should If we believe those things which are not at all to be believed. And thus, if we should believe whatsoever the Church of Rome proposeth, we might be destroyed for excesse of Faith. The Church of Rome is peccant in excesse of Faith by believing more points then it should believe, and this is the reason why our Divinity is in negatives, as to differences with them, because their Divinity in differences to us, is in additions.
SIR, If you will excuse me for being so long, I shall now conclude with the whole conclusion of Saint Austin, whereof you gave me but part. Against Reason no Sober Man will go, against Scriptures no Christian, (then Christians should go by Scriptures) against the Church no Peace-maker.
The Roman Catholick's first Treatise. How in these times in which there be so many Religious, the true Religion may certainly be found out.
The Preface.
THE Romane Catholicks have often foretold, that by permitting freely to all sorts of people whatsoever, the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue, multitudes of New Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless Number; and as for the Peoples Manners, they would daily grow worse and worse. How true this is, let the world judge. That then which now mainly imports, is to distinguish the true Religion from so many false ones. This is my Aim. To effect this, I did write a short Paper, shewing the Catholick Church so to teach the infallible way to Salvation (which is to be obtained onely in the true faith) that we cannot have as things stand, any other Assurance to ground our faith upon securely. I did never deny, that when by the Infallible Authority of the Church we are secured that the Scriptures be the word of God we cannot [Page 11] believe such things as are clearly contained in the Scripture: for so I should deny that I could not believe that to be infallibly true, which upon an Infallible ground I believed to be Gods own word. But I did, and still do maintain, that no man can have Infallible ground to believe the Scriptures now, but he who first believeth that which the Church teacheth to be infallibly true: Whence it will follow, that his faith must needs now at the first be grounded upon the Revelation of Gods truth, made by God to us by his Church, and not by his written word.
The Papers I did write to this Effect have been answered 2 by some truly Learned Scholar; so that I hope so worthy a Man will not reject such a Reply, as may seem to be as clear a Demonstration as any wise Man can hope for in this Matter. And such a Demonstration I hope (by Gods grace) to make, whilst I endevour to make good the Title prefixed to this Paper which Title I now add, to shew that my chief drift is to guide a Soul redeemed by Christs blood, to that happy eternity, to which we cannot attain, unless in all doubtful Controversies of faith we follow the Catholick Church as an Infallible Judge in all those Controversies; we being obliged under pain of damnation not to dis-believe this Judge. And whilst I demonstrate this, I do demonstrate my former Position, That the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church is the Ground of our faith. And also going on with this Demonstration, I will leave nothing of Concernment unanswered in the Reply made; and thus I will conclude contradictorily to the said Reply, which (a little after the beginning) denyeth, The Authority of the Catholick Church to be the Ground of faith, and that whereby we are infallibly ascertained of the minde of God. I answer not the Reply just in the Order that my Answer was returned; for so I should be over-long. I use this way of a little Treatise to prove my Title; for thus all will be more clear and less tedious. In the Conclusion I shew all the parts of the Reply to have been fully answered in this Discourse.
The Proof of the Title.
1 St. Anselme hath a very fit Similitude to express how much a Contentious Spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing the Manifest Truth. He sayeth, that a little before Sun-rising two men in the fields did fall into a hot debate concerning that place of the Heavens in which the Sun was that day to rise, the one pointing out one part of the Heavens, the other another. They passed so far in their Contention, that falling together by the Ears, they both pulled out one anothers Eyes, and so when the Sun by and by after did rise, neither of them both could see a thing so clear as was the place of the Sun rising. To our purpose; Because Zeal in Religion is accounted laudable, and also because prejudice, caused by Education in such or such a Religion, is a thing exceedingly swaying us to our own side, we are commonly apt to grow into so hot a debate in disputations about Religion, that I may freely say, This Passion hindreth many thousands from seeing that clear Sun-shine of Truth, which men of mean Capacity would clearly behold, if setting all passion and prejudice aside, they did with a Calm and humble Mind beg of God to give them this grace of seeking Truth with all sincerity: for then he who should seek, should find.
2 This is proved manifestly and very comfortably for the vulgar sort of less learned people (who make the greatest Number of Souls in the world) by those clear words of the Prophet Esay (c. 35.) Say to the faint-hearted, Take courage and fear not, behold God himself will come and save you: then shall the Eyes of the blind be opened, and the Ears of the deaf shall be opened, and there shall be a Path and a way, and it shall be called the Holy way, and this shall be unto you a direct way, so that fools cannot erre by it. By this place it is evidently proved, that the way which our Saviour at his coming would teach us, should be not onely in it self, [Page 13] but (as the Prophet saith) should be to us a direct way, so that fools cannot erre by it. Let there arise never so many Controversies in Religion, let there spring up never so many Sects, yet the Promise of God will stand, that our Saviour at his coming should shew us A holy way, which should be unto us so direct a way that fools cannot erre by it. What Holy way is this? I say, It is the Holy Catholick Church, which even by this place is proved Infallible, A way so direct unto us, that fools cannot erre by it. But even wise men might erre by it, and by following it most faithfully, if this way could be fallible, and lead Men into Errours, and those damnable.
To our Purpose then; All Christians of whatsoever 3 Religion they be, agree in this, That there must be One Judge of all Controversies and doubts, which either be or can be in Religion. The Reason is apparent, because otherwise every Man might be left free, to believe what he judged best, and so we should have as many Religions as there be Private and different Judgments. For if you in private, without all fault may follow your own Judgment (even after reading of Scripture,) and believe that to be true which out of Scriptures you think truest, why may not I, though I judge quite contrary to you, believe that also to be truest which I think to be true according to the Scriptures? Whence you see that Christ should have left a very Miserable Church, and should have gathered together a most heart-disunited sort of People, if after their reading of Scriptures, he had left them no other Judge but their own private Judgment. What Law-maker was ever so Inconsiderate, as to leave onely a Book of Laws to his Common-wealth, without any living Judge, to whose Judgment All were to submit? True it is, that to submit exteriorly to temporal Judges, is sufficient, they being able and onely to judge of the Exterior Man. But God who searcheth the Reines and the Heart, and who looketh most upon the Mind (which is the Seat of True [Page 14] or false belief) doth chiefly (exact, that those of his Church, be of One faith Inte [...]iourly, or else they be not of One faith, for faith essentially consisteth in the Interiour Judgment. He hath all reason to exact they be of One faith, for he could not seriously desire their Salvation, without he required of them to do that, which is so wholly Necessary to Salvation, that without it no man is saved: For without faith it is Impossible to please God (Heb. 11.6.) that is, It is impossible to please him without true faith; for he is not pleased with false faith. But without we please God, it is impossible to be saved; therefore without true faith (which consisteth in the Interiour Judgment) it is Impossible to be saved. And St. Paul (Ephes. 4.5.) teacheth us, that there is but one faith, one baptism, and one God. There being but One faith, and it being impossible to please God without this One faith, and all things necessary to please God being under Precept and of most strict Obligation, it followeth, that it is a Precept and a strict Obligation to have this faith, which chiefly and Essentially consisteth in the Interior Judgment. This I press so hard, because my Adversary hath a doctrine which I take to be exceedingly pernicious: for he saith, (Pag. 26. Answ. 5.) We say, They should be directed by their Ministers, and ordered by Bishops, the Pastors of the Church, chiefly when they are assembled in a General Councel, wherein is the highest power of hearing and ending differences in the Church. Yet we cannot say, that we are absolutely bound to their Canons, we having the Judgment of private discretion, and they not the Judgment of Infallibility; and therefore since they have not a power not to erre, we have a power to suspend our faith, &c. By these and many other words used to this Effect, you see here this Judgment of Private discretion left free in the Interiour, to hold what a Private person thinketh fit after perusal of the Scripture, although a whole General Councel thinketh, and most unanimously defineth the Contrary, even after [Page 15] they have heard and most diligently weighed and pondered the same places of Scripture. Good God! Is that thy Promise of a Holy way, that shall be to us a direct way, that fools cannot erre by it? Yea, is not the wisest Man in the world most likely to erre in this way, by which he may in his Interior Judgment go quite Contrary to all Christendome? I know indeed that All who are not Roman Catholicks must say this: for if the Church in a General Councel be fallible, then we cannot ground one [...] upon that Councels definition. But even by this desperate Consequence, it is evident that God would give his Church a [...] Infallible assistance, so to make good his Promise of leaving to them a Holy way, which should be unto them a direct way, so that fools cannot erre by it. For any Man of mean Capacity cannot erre, if he will submit his judgment to the Catholick Church; whereas any Man of never so great a Judgment, cannot but be highly suspected of Errour, and deeply guilty of exposing himself to manifest hazard of Erring in that faith (without which it is Impossible to please God) when he doth not submit his Interior Judgment to the known unanimous Judgment of the whole Church. St. Cyprian was a Prime Doctor of the Church, and yet grounding himself upon that which he judged to be Scripture (as appeareth by his first Book Ep. 6. and other places) he did erre grossly about the necessity of Rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks. But saith St. Austin, l. 2. de Bapt. (c. 4.) If he had lived to see the determination of a Plenary Councel, he would for his great Humility and Charity straightway have yielded, and preferred the General Councel before his own Judgment. Thus speaketh S. Austin of S. Cyprian, though he knew his private Judgment of discretion to be far less exposed in this Case to hazard of Erring, then is the private Judgment of discretion of most private Men in the world; especially when they go point-blank against a whole General Council in points of higher Concernment then [Page 16] was this point, in which S. Cyprian was presently ready to submit his Judgment. If then we will not be guilty of so intolerable a pride in overvaluing our own private Judgment of Discretion, with so manifest hazard of missing that without which we cannot please God, or be [...]ed, then will it highly concern us to enquire carefulnesses that Holy way, which will be unto us a direct way, so that fools cannot erre by it. For such a way our God hath promised us: Let us search carefully after it.
4 This Promise of God had not been performed, and Christ at his coming had but pittifully provided for his Church, if he had not left it some certain Judge, whose Judgment All men should be interiourly (for faith is in the Interiour) bound to follow in all their differences and Controversies; insomuch that it must be one of the highest degrees of Treason against God, not to submit his Judgment to the Judgment of him, whom God should appoint for the Judge of all Matters of faith. For if there be no such severe Obligation to submit to the Judgment of this Judge, then might every Man chuse, whether he would in his Interiour Judgment submit to this Judge or No. And so that very Absurdity and very Perdition of Souls would follow, which is in the having no Judge at all; to wit, that every Man might believe in his Interiour Judgment (in which onely faith consists) what should seem to him to be grounded in Scripture; And so as the private Judgment of discretion in one Man is directly Opposite and Contrary to another Mans private Judgment of discretion, the faith of the One would be directly contrary to the faith of the Other: And yet there is but one faith True, without which One true faith it is Impossible to please God, and consequently to be saved. How then should God have provided sufficiently for Mens Salvation, if after their most Careful reading and Conferring the Scriptures, No One Man among those Thousand Men, who even then differ in Religion, No One Man, I say, but that One Man [Page 17] who holdeth the Truth (which is but One) should Interiourly follow that faith, without which it is Impossible to be saved? It must needs then be a most damnable Sin to commit that highest treason against Gods Judge, which is committed by not submitting our Interior Judgment unto him; being that in this our proceeding we go a way, in which all unity in Interiour faith (which is in the first place to be regarded) is wholly Impossible to be kept.
Let us then see (as a thing which concerneth us both 5 most neerly) who is Guilty of this high Treason, I, who am a Roman Catholick, or You, who are not: for our faith being Contrary in Prime points, one of us must needs go astray from that One faith, without which it is Impossible to please God. And he of us Two who thus strayeth, therefore strayeth (and by doing so, teacheth others to stray) because he doth not submit his Judgment to the Judgment of this Judge: for if we both did this, we should joyn in all possible unity of this One true faith.
And here comes in that most Important question, Who 6 is this Judge, to whom All are thus to submit their Judgment in all Controversies of faith? For if we can find out this Judge, we can never remain in any doubt; for without all doubt, we must stand to the Judgment of this Judge, what reasons soever our private Judgment of Discretion may suggest; or else we had as good have no Judge at all, and it is not our Own private Judgment of discretion, but the Publick Judgment of that Judge whom Christ hath appointed us, and which we are obliged to follow, as hath been shewn.
All Protestants do say, that the Scripture, and onely 7 the Scripture is left us by Christ for our Judge, to end and determine with Infallible Authority all our doubts, differences, and Controversies in Religion. And in this their Tenent they agree with all Hereticks which have risen up against the Church of Christ. We Roman Catholicks do profess, that all reverence and all Credit is [Page 18] due unto the Scriptures, as unto the Infallible word of God, insomuch, that we are ready to give our lives in defence of any thing which is affirmed in Scripture. I add that we and only we do truly believe the Scriptures; for he only truly believeth any thing with divine faith, who groundeth his Assent upon divine Revelation: But the [...]ssent of Roman Catholicks only with which they believe the Scriptures to be Gods undoubted word) is grounded on divine Revelation, manifested to them by his Church, which (as I will shew) is Infallible. The Assent, by which others believe the Scriptures to be Gods undoubted word, is not grounded on this Revelation manifested by his Church, as they all confess, neither is it grounded upon any other divine Revelation, as I will now prove. For if there be any such Revelation manifested to them, it is manifested to them in the Scriptures, as they say: But there is no such Revelation manifested to them in the Scriptures; for it is written no where in the Scriptures, that such and such books of Scripture be Canonical, and the undoubted word of God; therefore this cannot be believed for any Revelation made manifest to us in Scripture. They believe therefore this without any revelation made by God, and so their Belief is not Divine, but a humane belief, just such an one as we have, that such and such a book is Virgil's, such a book is Cicero's, &c. And if they tell me, that they by reading Canonical Scriptures, do see a light clearly manifesting them to be Gods word, I answer, that the sight by this light is no certain divine revelation, but a humane perswasion subject to falsity, and that far more then the light, by which whole General Councels have seen the quite Contrary, as I clearly will prove, Numb. 13. A second convincing Argument to prove, that onely we truely believe the Scriptures, is, that all others who understand not Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were written, cannot know by any divine faith the undoubted word of God, but they all take upon trust of [Page 19] Men fallible the Translations, which they call Gods word, which Translations are full of many and gross corruptions, as concerning our English Bible in particular many have shewed. Now then there is not one amongst ten thousand, who perfectly understand Greek and Hebrew; Therefore all the rest have onely a humane perswasion, that their Scriptures be Gods uncorrupted word. For I am sure it is no where revealed, that these Translations be Gods uncorrupted word. The Roman Catholick hath still the Authority of a Church Infallible, to assure him which is, which is not Gods uncorrupted word. This Authority I will prove to be Divine and warranted by God. But yet we hold it Impossible, that the book of the Scripture should be the Judge appointed by Christ to end all Controversies, or that it should be that Holy way, that shall be unto us a direct way, that fools cannot erre by it. For we see with our eyes whole Thousands of Men very wise and Learned, whilst they follow the Scriptures with all sincerity (as they most solemnly protest from their heart) to follow a world of quite contrary ways in matter of highest Importance to Salvation, and consequently all these Multitudes of wise men, but those who go one only of these wayes, must needs go astray. Now if wise Men in so great Multitudes do so strangely stray, whilst in all sincerity (as they protest) they follow this way, how is it true, that fools cannot erre by it? Doth not St. Austin, and all the greatest Doctors that ever the Church had, profess themselves unable to understand the Scriptures, and this after many years study in them? and how then can men of such ordinary Capacities, and of so mean study and knowledg of those tongues in which the Scriptures were written, and so great variety of Opinions about the true Canon of Scriptures, and a far greater variety about the true Interpretation of so many most Important places of the true Canon of Scripture, come to know the truth, the Infallible and undoubted truth, and this so assuredly, that they [Page 20] may with a safe Conscience upon their private Judgment of discretion settle their faith unmoveably in points which they know to be so mightily called into doubt by the greater Part of the world, yea that whole General Councels have unanimously defined the Contrary, and believed those places of Scripture not to say that to be so, which, for those places of Scripture, they still say and firmly believe to be so? Is not such a belief mainly to be suspected, even in the wisest and learnedst Men? And will you then say still, that this is A direct way unto us, so that fools cannot erre by it? The contrary will yet appear far more clearly, when you shall have pondered the ensuing reasons: yet take this for one strong reason, why the Scriptures cannot be that Judge of Controversies who is to direct us, by a way so direct unto us, that fools, cannot erre by it.
8 The second Reason, to prove the Scriptures not to be this Judge, is this. There be many Controversies, and may be yet very many more, most nearly concerning the necessary Means to Salvation, which can never be ended, and undoubtedly decided by the Judgment and sentence to the Scriptures. I will alledge several convincing Examples. For a Controversie may be moved concerning the lawfulness of working, or not working upon Saturdayes and Sundayes. How will this Controversie be decided by the Scriptures? All the old Scriptures command strictly the not working upon Saturdayes, and no One single word of the New Scripture doth assure us, that this Command was ever by Lawful Authority taken away; or that there is the least unlawfulness in working upon the Sunday. We know indeed, that there was such a day as the Lords day, called by that name, because Saint John had a vision upon that day, as he had also upon many other dayes. We know St. Paul preached upon the first day of the week, and so he did upon many other dayes, and most upon the Saturday or Sabboth; For [Page 21] He disputed in the Synagogue every Sabboth, and the exhorted the Jews and the Greeks. (Act. 18.) We know the first day of the week was at one time appointed for the gathering of Almes for poor Christians: But how doth this or any of the former Places prove the Commandement of not working on the Saturday to be taken quite away, and that undoubtedly? Or how do any of these places impose upon All Christians, a manifest and unquestionable Obligation of not working on Sundays? And yet this is All that can be said out of the Scriptures for the undoubted abolishing of a certain Commandement of God, and the undoubted bringing into the place of it a New Commandement, without perhaps the Rising onely of our Saviour on the Sunday be sufficient to prove both these things undoubtedly. Yet how can this be? For the day of his Ascension into Heaven was the final period of all he did in the world, and that day was Thursday. The Resurrection indeed might be a Ground for such a Change, but it is nowhere in Scripture that such a Change was made on that Ground. Yea if we stand even to the New Scriptures, our Adversaries the Jews will be too hard for us. For they will tell us, that according to our Scriptures, when our Saviour was asked (Mat. 19.) What good shall I do, that I may have life Everlasting? our Saviour said, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Commandements. And when that Man replyed, to know what Commandement he did understand, he clearly told him, that he understood the Commandements of the Decalogue, Those very Commandements which that Man knew well enough, (as it is said clearly also in St. Mark 10. Luke 18.) You see here (will a Jew, or some new Sectary say unto us) that even in our new Law, our own Law-maker with his own mouth commandeth, as a thing necessary to enter into life Everlasting, the keeping of the Commandements of the Decalogue, which that Man did know. Therefore he in the New Law commanded that Commandement of keeping the Saturday to be [Page 22] observed, as well as the rest. And St. Paul (1 Cor. 7.19.) Circumcision is nothing, and Prepuce is nothing, but the Observation of the Commandements of God. See here St. Paul, even after Circumcision was declared nothing, to declare the Commandements of God to stand in force; and yet among these Commandements, a chief one is, the keeping of the Saturday, or seventh day, on which God rested: which reason also holdeth still, for still it is true, that God rested on the seventh Day, and he blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it, for the foresaid Reason. How came this Sanctification and Blessing to be lost, the reason of it being still as good as ever? And why then (will this Jew or Sectarist say) should we prefer the keeping of any other day before this, which hath so good a Reason, that you cannot give a better, at least undoubtedly better, and which hath so manifest Authority of the Old and of the New Scriptures, even Three of the four Evangelists, and also in St. Paul; whereas for the taking away of this Commandement, or for the not working on the Sunday, there is not one single Place in all the Bible, much lesse such a place as manifestly convinceth? This Argument is unanswerable to those who make the Scriptures the sole Judge of Controversies.
9 Again, these Jews and new Sectaries will presse us, that our own Scriptures (which we hold onely to be our Judge in all Controversies) do cleerly tell us, that even in the New Law it is said (Act. 15.) It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us (Apostles of the New Law) to lay no further burthen upon you, then these necessary things, that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols, and blood, and that which is strangled. See here, among Necessary things, one is, to abstain from blood (which Christians do not, nor think not to be done; for they freely eat black Puddings) and also to abstain from things strangled, as when we strangle Chickens and eat them freely. If you tell me, that Scripture onely is Iudge of [Page 23] Controversies, I will tell you that by the Iudgement of this Iudge (following no other as infallible) woe be to the Opinion of all Catholiques and Protestants, who hold it lawful to work upon Saturdayes, unlawful on Sundayes; lawful to eat Blood and Strangled things, unlawful to abstain from them, as still forbidden: woe I say to our Opinion; for it not onely will not be judged as undoubtedly true by Scripture, but also it will, and that undoubtedly, be judged false by the Places now cited. I pray tell me here, how Men of mean capacity, yea how Men of the greatest capacity in the World, shall be able to finde by the judgement of Scripture onely, what is Infallibly to be believed in these points, in which so many hundred Thousands of Jewes damnably differ from us.
Did not all this Kingdome of England grounded upon 10 Scriptures, clear enough (as they said) both hold and swear, that they held the King, the Head of the Church? can any point in the Church be of higher concernment to the Church, then to know for certain their own Head? And yet this point is now no longer ascertained us by the Infallible judgement of Scripture.
For another example, what Controversie can more import, 11 then to be undoubtedly, and by Infallible Authority secured, which books of Scripture be Canonical, and the certain Word of God, and which be not? You say there is no Infallibility of any verity to be had but by the Scripture. But I say, that in all the Scripture no Infallibility can be had concerning the Canon of the Scripture: wherefore either we cannot know this most important point of all points infallibly, or else we must acknowledge the Church to be Infallible: for the Scripture in this point is wholly silent. We dispute and differ highly about the books of Macchabees, whether they be the certain Word of God or no. I pray tell me, how shall this grand Controversie be decided, and decided Infallibly by the [...]udgement of Scripture? Luther denyeth the Apocalypse to be [Page 24] true Scripture: we all in England stand out against him. I pray tell me what Scripture we have against him that is Infallible, without begging the question which is called into Controversie.
12 We all believe the Gospel of St. Matthew, not onely to be the true Gospel of Christ and his Word, but also to be the Gospel of St. Matthew, as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark. If any Man should deny this, what place of Scripture could we cite against him? or what Infallible ground have we of this our belief? The Marcionists, the Cerdonists, the Manichaeans do absolutely deny St. Matthews Gospel to be Gods Word. This Controversie, you say, and all other Controversies of Faith, is to be ended by the Scripture: I ask what place of Scripture will end this Controversie, and all other Controversies about all other books of Scripture, which have almost all been denyed to be Gods Word, by some Hereticks or other. And as for St. Matthew, you must know that all Ancient Writers, no one excepted, do say, that he did write in Hebrew; and yet neither his Hebrew Gospel, nor any one certain Copy of it is extant in the World. Tell me then, upon what undoubted Ground you beleeve any thing that is in St. Matthews Gospel onely. The Greek Translation which we have, was made by God knows whom: for we know not. He might be a faithful or unfaithful Translator, he might use a false uncorrect Copy, he might mistake in many places by Ignorance, in many by Negligence or Malice. Upon what Infallible ground shall a converted Manichaean (as St. Austin for example) believe this Greek Gospel which we have? By what Scripture will you presse him to it? yea, upon what Scripture do you your selves beleeve this Gospel (this Greek Translation of S. Matthew?) If you tell me Saint Matthew did write in Greek, I must tell you, that all Antiquity (no one antient Author excepted) say the contrary. How will you then ground Infallible belief, upon your so [Page 25] new and so uncertain Opinion? When this question was moved, whether any Book was to be received as the Infallible Word of God or no, The Holy Fathers could never finde any more undoubted ground, then that the Church did allow or not allow of such Books to be held for Gods undoubted Word. Upon this ground St. Athanasius (in fine Synopsis) receiveth the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the other Three Gospels, and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas. Upon this Ground Tertullian, St. Hierome, St. Austin, and St. Leo, professe themselves to admit such, and to deny other Books to be Canonical. Upon this ground it is, that Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. l. 3.19.) saith, such Scriptures are held for true, genuine, and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all, because they are so According to the Tradition of the Church, and that by this Evident Note or Mark, they are distinguished from others. Behold the most perspicuous mark, by which Scriptures could be Infallibly known to be, or not be Gods undoubted Word, is the Tradition of the Church. Whence St. Austin, giving a reason to the Manichaeans (who believed some part of the Gospel) why he cited the Acts of the Apostles (which they believed not) saith thus, Which Book (of the Acts) it is necessary for me to believe, if I believe the Gospel, being the Catholick Authority in like manner commendeth both these Scriptures to me. So he, contra Ep. Fund. c. 4.
By this the Author of the Reply may see how Insufficient 13 his Answer (pag. 25.) is, when he saith, Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church, but we do not take them to be Canonical upon her Tradition; but assent is setled in them as Canonical, in the way of Faith, because they are such: In thy light we shall see light; so by Scripture we shall see Scripture. So he, but not so any one of the Fathers, who were most often pressed to give a reason why they believed such Books to be Canonical, why not. None of these professed themselves to be so sharp sighted, that by seeing onely Canonical Scriptures, they could see them [Page 26] to be Canonical Scriptures, and that so manifestly, as to ground their Faith upon it. You by the Apocalyps see it to be Canonical; your most illuminated Luther could not see it to be so by that light. By all the light he had, he Judged St. James his Epistle to be made of Straw, yet you see in it a light, shewing undoubtedly it to be Gods Word. You cannot see the two first Books of Macchabees to be Canonical, yet St. Austin believed them to be so, for that the Councel of Carthage (Can. 47.) received them for such; as also the books of Wisdome, of which St. Austin saith, That it was received of all Christian Bishops, and others, even to the last of the Laity, with veneration of Divine Authority (l. de Praedest. Sanct. Sanctorum 14.) What more cleer? And yet you see, that all you of the Church of England, deny all veneration of Divine Authority to this Book. By what Scripture shall we end this and the like Controversies of other Books, for which we have as strong proofs as these now cited; and you have onely so weak a proof, as is a light so peculiar to your selves. And upon the certainty given you, onely by this sight, you firmely believe all the Scripture that you believe, that is; all the Faith you have, all the Beliefe you have depends upon this; That you can see so evidently such and such a Book to be Canonical, that this your Sight, by light received from those Book, shewing them to be assuredly Canonical, is the onely Infallible Assurance you have, that such and such Books are Canonical; and consequently, this your peculiar sight is the onely Infallible Ground you have to rely upon these books, as upon the undoubted Word of God. This is your Doctrine, this is your Holy Way, a way so direct, that fools cannot erre by it, though you professe so many wise Men in this point have erred, even whole General Councels, as also so many great Doctors, before whose eyes this same light stood as clear as before yours: for they Judged very many to be Canonical Scriptures which you deny; so weak a ground are you all forced to rely upon, even in [Page 27] the main Point of Eternal Salvation, whilest you refuse to rely on the Infallible Authority of Christs Church. Neither doth this our relying on the Churches Authority derogate to the Scriptures: for we do not say, that the Church maketh them true Scriptures, but it maketh us to have an Infallible Ground to hold them for true Scriptures as they are in themselves, and this, not because the Church maketh them held to be so, but because they are true in themselves, as being the Word of God; yet not known by themselves to be so by any Infallible knowledge, without this the testimony of the Church; as Christ was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World, but the Infallible testimony of St. John Baptist, made many know, that he was so. And thus Christ was made known to the world by the Infallible testimony of his Apostles; upon whose testimony many Thousands believed before the Scriptures were written. Therefore for the Scriptures to be believed what they are of themselves, for the Infallible Testimony of the Church, doth no more derogate to their honour, or make the Church Superiour to them, then it derogateth to the honour of the Son of God to be believed to be what he is, upon the Infallible testimony of his Apostles; which testimony had it not been Infallible, those who grounded their Faith upon it had had no Infallible ground to believe our Saviour to be him, who he is. In like manner, if the Authority of the Church, testifying such and such books to be Gods Word, were not Infallible, we should have no Infallible ground to know them to be such, though they truly be such of themselves: but of this Infallibility I will say no more.
Now I will go on, and shew yet further, that the Scriptures 14 cannot be the Judges of all Controversies: for many things are set down in Scripture in such manner, that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church, do arise about the true Interpretation of the Scripture. And [Page 28] God did well know that this would happen, and therefore he must needs know that he should give the world a very unprofitable Judge, in order to the keeping of Unity, and deciding of Controversies, if he should onely leave them a Book, about the true meaning of which Book he well knew more Controversies and Disunions in Religion would arise, then about any other matter; so that the greatest Wits here, being at greatest dissention, this cannot be That holy way, a way so direct to us, that fools cannot erre by it. No Law-maker of any Common-wealth did ever provide so simply for the Unity of it, as to leave them onely a Book of Lawes to be the sole Judge of all their Controversies, as I shewed before. And surely if Christ had intended to leave us a Book to be our sole Judge in all Controversies, then undoubtedly he would in some part of this Book have clearly told us so, this importing so exceedingly as it doth, and yet he hath not done so. Secondly, if he would have given us a Book for Judge he would never have given us for our Judge, such a Book as the Scripture is, which very often speaketh, sometimes so Prophetically, that most would think it spoke of the present time, when it speaketh of the time to come; that it spoke of one person, for example, of David, when it speaketh of Christ; sometime it speaketh by a Figure, by a Metaphor, by a Parable, it hath Tropological, Allegorical, Anagogical, and Mystical senses. It useth the Imperative Mood, as well for Councels as Commands. In no place it so much goeth about to set down a Catalogue of any particular points necessary, and onely necessary to be believed, which any wise Law-maker would do, if he intended by his writings to end all Controversies in Faith: yea, the Scripture seemeth often to say evidently that, which according to your Doctrine is false. You hold for Superstitious, the Annoynting of sick Persons, with certain Prayers, and yet Saint James saith (cap. 5. ver. 14.) Is any sick among you? let him call for the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over [Page 29] him, annoynting him with Oyl, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Is not this Controversie clearly by this place of Scripture decided against you? or, have you any one place half so clear to the contrary? Again, about those other most clear words spoken in the Institution of another great Sacrament, in which any wise Man would speak clearly, This is my Body, the late Adversaries of the Roman Church have found out above two hundred several Interpretations. They will needs have the sense to be figurative, although never any Man in any figurative speech was heard to speak thus: For example, to take a Vine, a Lamb, a Door in his hand, and say, this Vine, this Lamb, this Door is Christ; This is no kinde of figurative speech, though it be a clear figure to say, Christ is a Vine, a Lamb, a Door, yea he is Bread: But to take Bread into a Mans hand, as Christ did, and then say, This Bread is my Body; to take a Cup of Wine into his hand, and to say, This is the Cup of my Blood, which shall be shed for you, doth not so much as sound like a figurative speech; and yet our Adversaries think it so certainly to be so, that they venture their Souls upon that their conceived certainty. Thus you see, when the Scripture in four several places delivereth these four words, This is my Body; Men will hold it to be clear, that so clear words be not clear, and will venture their Salvation upon this their Imagination. In this and many other points, we say, the Scripture is clear for us: The Lutherans say, it is clear for them: The Calvinists say, it is clear for them. We have conferred Place with Place, we have looked in the Originals; and after all this, the Scripture doth not decide this Controversie; but when all is done, we are as far from Agreeing, and being brought to the undoubted knowledge of the most important truth, as we were at the beginning.
Another very strong Argument, to declare that the 15 Scripture cannot be the Judge of all Controversies in [Page 30] points of Faith necessary to Salvation, is this; That there be many points, the believing of which is necessary to Salvation, which points are no where set down clearly in Scripture. For first, you make it the chief point of all points, to believe the Scripture to be the Judge of all Controversies, and by it self sufficient to end them all. I ask, where is this point of points which you make the ground of your belief? where is it, I say, set down in Scriptures, and that so clearly, that no prudent doubt can be made, but that such words clearly say what you say? Doth not Saint Athanasius in his Creed put down as an undoubted Article of Catholick Faith, (which Faith (as he saith) without a Man hold it entirely and inviolably, without all doubt he shall perish eternally) doth he not put down there, that we must believe; That God the Father is not begotten, that God the Son is not made, but begotten by his Father only; that the holy Ghost is neither made, nor begotten, but doth proceed, and that both from the Father and the Son; And that he, who will be saved, must believe thus? And yet how far are these most hard points from being clearly deliver'd in the Scripture: So also, that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father, and of the same Substance, is a certain Article of Faith, and yet no where clearly delivered in Scripture, but was believed by All upon the sole Authority of the Church, which consequently was believed Infallible.
16 I have already shewed, that the necessary cōmandment of keeping the Sunday in place of the Saturday is no where in Scripture, but rather the contrary. How then can I believe this for the Scripture, or for any clear place of it, there being no such place to be found? I have also shewed, that it is no where in Scripture set down at all (much lesse set down clearly and manifestly) which Books of Scripture be Canonical, which not. How then by the Testimony of Scripture which giveth no Testimony at all of this point, can I believe such books undoubtedly to be, such not to be Canonical? Baptisme of Children to be Necessary to [Page 31] their salvation is a prime point of Belief, and yet you cannot believe this prime point upon any clear place of Scripture (for there is no such place) but you must all say with the great Saint Austin, That though nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures in this point, yet in this point, the truth of Scriptures, (and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith) is kept by us, when we do that which seemed good to the Catholick Church, which Church the Authority of the same Scriptures doth commend. (Contra Crescon. l 1.13.) And this following the Tradition of the Church, he calleth The most true and inviolable Rule of Truth. He holdeth therefore Tradition of the Church so Infallible, that it may be a ground for Faith. He was taught so by Saint Paul, (2 Thes. 2.) Hold the Traditions which you have received either by word of Mouth, or by Epistle. Upon which place, Saint Chrysostome having taught that the Apostles delivered many things by word of Mouth, not set down any where in writing; he saith, that these (unwritten Traditions) are worthy of the same belief which those deserve which are written: It is a Tradition (of the Catholick Church) Seek no further. So he. But you say, I must seek further to find this in Scripture, yet Saint Chrysostome tells me, that being a Tradition of the Church, it is Gods Word, and upon this account as worthy to be believed as if it were his written Word: for it is the being his Word, and not the being of his written Word, which maketh it Infallibly true.
Well then, It having been made clear by all these reasons 17 and authorities, that the Scriptures cannot be intended by Christ for the Judge of all our Controversies in Faith, and that their reading cannot be that Holy way, a way so direct unto us, that fools cannot erre by it; Let us see where this way is to be found, and who is to be judge to define all Controversies with Infallible authority, so that all are bound to submit their Interiour judgement (in which all faith consists) to this Authority, it being high Treason against [Page 32] Christ, not to submit to an Authority instituted by him purposely to oblige all to this submission. I say this Judge is the Catholique Church. This I will prove first, and this being proved, I will shew briefly that no Church but the Roman can prudently be held to be this Catholique Church. In proof of the Catholique Church her being Judge of all Controversies; I alledge first those words, (Matth. 16. v. 18. I say unto thee, (that is to St. Peter by name) Thou art Peter, (that is, Thou art a Rock;) and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; that is, those Gates of Hell out of which so many damnable Errours shall issue, shall never prevail by inducing any damnable Error into that Church, which I will build upon thee, O Peter, and thy Successours; which I add, because this Church was not to be built upon the Person of St. Peter onely; for then this fair building had fallen to the ground when St. Peter had died. They who do say, that the Church may fall into damnable Errors, do say, that the Church may fall to the ground, and that the Gates of Hell may prevail against it: for what greater fall can it have, then by damnable Errors to make its Members all fall into Hell? and in what manner can the Gates of Hell more prevail against it? And yet we are sure by Gods Word, that shall never happen. Wherefore in this Church we imbrace most groundedly all things proposed by it to be believed. Here you see our Judge, Christs Church, hath Gods warrant to warrant Her from bringing in any damnable Error by her Judgement: All may therefore securely obey, But that none can securely disobey her Judgement; Christ also doth warrant us, in the next Chapter but one: (for Matth. 18. v. 17.) he saith, Tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican. Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge: for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal, and if for disobedience after her Judgement [Page 33] 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 18 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 [Page 34] 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.
19 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 [Page 35] 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 20 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 [Page 36] 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.
21 I see no exception there can be made against this Judge: Onely you will tell me, that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith, which I also confesse; yet I also say, that this Church of Christ, must be confessed to be Infallible. But withall, I would have every one know, that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more, then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawful General Councel, cannot erre; for it is no necessary Article of Faith, to believe that the Pope or head of the Church cannot erre, when he defineth without a General Councel. Now that this definition of a whole General Councel is Infallible, ought not to seem strange to any Christian: for who can think it strange, that Christ, for the secure direction of the first Christians whom the Apostles converted, should give this Infallibility to all and every one of the Apostles, and that he should regard so little the secure direction of all other Christians, who were to be from the Apostles time, to the end of the world, that for their sakes, & for the secure direction of their Souls, he would not give this Infallibility so much as to one Man, no not to all the Prelats of Christianity assembled together with their head, to define matters most necessary, and in which all error would be most pernicious; who I say, could think this strange? especially, being this gift of Infallibility is given, not for their private sakes to whom it is given, but for the universal good, and necessary direction, concord, and perpetual unity of the whole Church? You must acknowledge that he gave Infallibility of Doctrine to all those, who did write any small part of the Old or New Scripture. He gave it to David, though he was an Adulterer: he gave it to Solomon, who proved not only a most vicious Man in Life, but who for his own person in point of Faith, came to fall into Worshipping [Page 37] of Idols. This you will not have thought strange, but you will hold it Incredible, that he should give this Infallibility, not to one Man, but the whole Church, represented in a General Councel.
Let us passe on further yet, and see how firmly this 22 Infallibility is grounded. I have above shewed how strongly it is grounded on those words of God, promising a Holy way, a way so direct unto us, that fools cannot erre by it. See here the third Number. In the eight Number I have shewed, that we cannot ground that Faith, by which we believe the Sabbath to be changed to the Sunday, upon Scripture; but we must ground it upon the Tradition of the Church, which if it be not Infallible, we have no Infallible Ground at all for this point. And in the ninth Number, I have shewed the self-same to be about eating Blood, or Chickens, or any thing that is strangled. In the 11, 12, and 13. Number, I have demonstrated, that by the Scripture we cannot know which is true Scripture, which is false; which Books be Infallibly the Word of God, which not; for the Scripture hath not one Text in which it telleth us this: and therefore for this Important point of Faith, we can finde no other sure Ground, then the Tradition of an Infallible Church: for a fallible Tradition may deceive us. In the 14. Number I have shewed, that when Controversies arise (as most, and most Important Controversies do arise) about the true meaning of the Scripture, even after we have conferred all places together, and looked upon the Original Languages, the the Controversies still remain undecided, and no Infallible way can be found to decide them by Scripture. There is therefore no Infallible way to decide them; if the decision and definition of the whole Church in a General Councel be not Infallible. This is so clear, that (to the wonder of the world) Luther himself, in his Book of the Power of the Pope, writeth thus. We are not certain, of any private Man, that he hath the Revelation of the Father. The Church alone it is, of which it is not lawful to doubt. So he. In the [Page 38] 15. Number I have shewed, that there be many points necessarily to be believed under pain of damnation, which points are not at all set down in any clear Scripture. For these points it is manifest, that we can have no other ground then the Authority of the Church. If this be not Infallible, then we have onely fallible ground, which cannot be a ground of Faith. In the 16. Number I have confirmed the same Doctrine by the Authority of Saint Austin and Saint Chrysostome. In the 17. Number I have proved this Doctrine clearly out of Gods Promise, that he would build this his Church upon a Rock, and that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it, which the Gates of Hell might easily do, if the Church could come to teach damnable errors, carrying her and her Children into the Gates of Hell it self. The same in the same place I have proved by Gods commanding us to Tell the Church, and commanding us to hold all those who will not hear the Church, as Publicans and Heathens; and by making good in Heaven the Sentence of the Church given upon Earth, which he would not do, if the Church should have at any time failed in her definition, and that in points damnably erroneous. In the 18. Number I have alledged other Texts, still proving the same. In the 19. Number I have shewed, that for two Thousand years together, before the Scriptures were written, the true believers had no other sure ground of their Faith, but the Authority of the Church, which if it had been fallible, the very ground of their Faith had been groundlesse, and none at all. The first Believers also, and many whole Nations, had no other ground, then the said Authority of the Church, as there I have shewed out of Saint Irenaeus, and it is clear of it self; for they did not build their Faith on any Scriptures. Thus far I have gone already in the proof of the Infallibility of the Church. Now I go on with those words of Saint Paul (1 Tim. 3. v. 15.) where the Church of the living God, is called, The Pillar and Ground of Truth. May not Men rely [Page 39] securely upon the Pillar of Truth? May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth? No ground being surer ground, and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self. Yea, my Adversary having found a place in St. Irenaeus, calling the Scripture the Foundation and Pillar of Faith, doth infer that if it be so, then it is the ground and cause of our faith. If this consequence be strong (which I deny not) then is it yet a stronger, that the Truth is no where surer grounded, then upon the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. But my Adversary would take this place of St. Paul from me, because he saith, This expression may very reasonably be referred (not to the Church, but to the mystery of Godlyness) and so be an Hebrew form, &c. Surely he forgot that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek; and then again, No Hebrew form in the world can make the sense he intends. What can be clearer then this, if I say, such a thing was done by Cicero the Father of his Countrey, and Caesar did such another thing? What I say more clear, then that in this speech I call Cicero The Father of his Country and not Caesar, of whom as yet I had not so much as spoken? So the Apostle had not so much as spoken of any Mystery, when he spoke these words, which lie thus in your own Bible, That thou maist know how to behave thy self in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth; and without Controversie great is the Mystery of Godlynesse, &c. Do you not see, that he had not so much as spoken of this Mystery, when he said the former words, which in all kind of Construction per Appositionem, clearly relate to the Church. O, but my Adversary tells me, that this title of being The Pillar and Foundation of Truth agreeth in the first place to the Scripture. I answer, it agreeth equally to any thing, that is the True Word of God; and therefore it agreeth to the Scripture, because God speaketh by it & in it; but God also speaketh by his Church, and in his Church, giving as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Councel, as he gave to him who [Page 40] did deliver his Word in Scripture; for example, as he gave to Solomon, who in his own person came to play the Idolater. It is objected also, that in these words rather the Office of the Church is set forth then her Authority. To which my Answer is clear, that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out, then by saying; that she is The Pillar and ground of Truth: for what Authority can rely more safely, then that which relyeth on the Pillar of Truth? What Authority can be better founded and grounded, then that which is founded and grounded upon the Ground and Foundation of Truth? So that nothing can be more clear against Scripture, then to say, it doth not set out the Authority of the Church in this place, No Text being clearer for any thing. Hence when the Church had defined, that God the Son was Consubstantial to his Father, (that is, of one and the same substance) which is no where clearly said in Scripture, St. Athanasius calleth this Definition of the Church the Word of God, saying, that ever hereafter this Definition of the Nicen Councel, That Word of God by the Nicen Councel doth remain for ever and ever (Ep. ad African. Episc.) Behold here the Definition of the Councel, called The Word of God remaining for ever and ever. Is not this to acknowledge the Church Infallible in her Definition?
23 That place also out of St. Matthew proveth strongly the Churches infallibility. Christ there bids his Apostles to teach and Baptize all Nations, adding, And behold, I am with you all dayes, even to the consummation of the world. My Adversary saith, It is not necessary to extend this Promise to Christ his being with the Church to the end of the world; which is all one, as to say, It is not necessary that Christ his Promise should be true. For surely he cannot promise more clearly to be with his Church to the end of the world. If he should say, I will be with you for a Thousand [Page 41] years, he should not perform his promise unlesse he were with it a thousand years: wherefore promising to be with it even to the consummation of the world, to make his promise true he must be with them so long. Now the Apostles were not so long as the end of the world baptizing and preaching, but their successors are with them, therefore Christ must be to the consummation of the world. And though these successors of the Apostles be not so worthy of Infallible Assistance as the Apostles were, yet Christ giving the gift of infallible assistance, not for the worth of the person to whom it is given, but for the secure direction of so many millions as were to be of the Church after Christ his time, there is as much, yea far more reason why he should leave the like secure direction for them; because the further we go from Christs time, the more we are subject to uncertainties about his Doctrine. See Numb. 21. It being then proved, that Christ will be with his Church untill the consummation of the world, and it being manifest that he is not with those, who live in damnable Errors, we must of necessity say that Christs Church in all ages lived secured from damnable Errors, or else there was some Age in which he was not with it, and in which he performed not his promise. And the same is to be said of that place of St. John (14.) And I will aske the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete that may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth. This abiding of the spirit of Truth for ever, secures us for ever from all damnable Errors. Admirably St. Austin. (l de utilit. cred. c. 6) If the Providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs, in vain would sollicitude be about Religion; but if God be thus present with us, truely we are not to despair that there is some Authority appointed by the same God, on which Authority we relying, as on an assured step may be lifted up to God. So he. But if this step be fallible, It is no assured step: Gods providence therefore hath left an Infallible Authority in his Church, such an Authority as the first Church had for 2000. years before any Scripture was written.
24 And do not tell me that all this is then only true, if the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture: for even in that sense, the Devil himself, the Father of Lyes, is Infallible, as long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures, and the Gates of Hell cannot by any error prevail against the Devil of Hell: yea, as long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture, he is The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Hath God in the Texts alledged given no more to the Church, then to the Devils? And how is this answer to the purpose, seeing that for two Thousand years before Scripture, no man could know what was conformable to Scripture; yea, nothing was then conformable to any Scripture, there being no Scripture at all? And the Church then had not Gods Promise, which in all the Texts, Authorities and Reasons above alledged, is, that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable matter shall be against Scripture; so that when we know this is her Doctrine, we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood. And thus clearly is fulfilled those notable words in the Prophet Daniel, (cap. 2. v. 44.) In the dayes of those Kingdomes, the God of Heaven will raise up a Kingdome which shall not be dissipated, and his Kingdome shall not be delivered to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and consume all these (Idolatrous) Kingdomes, and it shall stand for 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 [Page 43] 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 25 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 [Page 44] 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.
26 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 [Page 45] 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. Why so? Mark if his ground be not as I told you, Because [Page 46] (saith he) I have believed the Gospel it selfe upon the preaching of the Catholiques. Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their teaching, then upon this, to believe the Gospel it selfe? He goeth on thus: Again, If you hold to the Gospel, my hold shall still be on the Authority of that Church, upon whose Authority I believed the Gospel. I (saith he) will hold my self to those, by whose teaching I have believed the Gospel, and these commanding me, I will not believe thee. And Saint Austin goeth so far upon this Ground, as a Ground Infallible, that he saith, If perhaps you Manichaeans can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove that Apostleship of Manichaeus, that then indeed they shall weaken the Authority of the Catholiques. But what do you think will follow? I pray note it well. Their Authority being weakned (and shewed once fallible) now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel. And why so? Because upon the Authority of these Catholiques, I had believed the Gospel. The ground of his belief in the Gospel, was their Infallible authority, as not onely these, but also the next words shew manifestly. Wherefore (saith he) if in the Gospel, there be found nothing, that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus, then I will believe the Catholiques rather then You. But if You shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle, then I will neither believe the Catholiques nor thee. Why so? I will not believe the Catholiques, because they (whose Doctrine I thought Infallible) have lyed to me concerning your Manichaeans: But I will not believe thee even when thou citest clear Scripture (for of this case he speaketh) and why so? Because thou dost cite me that [...]cripture, to which Scripture I had now believed upon their Authority who have lyed unto me. Thus he. Could he more clearly say, that if once in one single Lye, he should finde the Churches Authority to be fallible, he should then have left unto him, no Infallible Ground at all, upon which he were to believe Scripture. To deliver a Doctrine thus inculcated over and over again, [Page 47] and thus still relying on this one Ground, is far, and very far from letting a word slip in heat of disputation. And therefore (to speak plainly) my Adversary could not deal sincerely, when he said, If we considered the whole Chapter we should be of his minde: for nothing can make us lesse of his minde, then to consider the whole Chapter, as I have faithfully done, excepting one little parcel in the end, which most strongly confirmes all I have said; for it followeth, but God forbid I should not believe the Gospel (having so Infallible Authority for it, as the Church is) yet believing this Gospel, I do not see, how I can believe thee (teaching me Manichaeus to be an Apostle:) for we know which Apostle it was, who was chosen in the place of Judas the Traytor; This we have read in the Acts of the Apostles. And because the Manichaeans did not believe the Acts of the Apostles, he addeth, which Book (of the Acts) I must necessarily believe, if I believe the Gospel. And why? Because the Catholique Authority doth in like manner commend both these Scriptures to me. See here again most evidently he saith, the Ground upon which he believeth the Acts of the Apostles, as well as he believed the other Scriptures to be the self-same Catholique Authority, which in one and the same manner commendeth both Scriptures to us to be believed. Had he said, that he believed this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it, by which he discovered it to be Canonical, then the Manichaeans might as easily have said, that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical. Thus I have given a large and most faithful account of this Chapter, setting most of it down word for word. And this last place, as also many other, quite overthrow what my Adversary saith, that he spoke here of himself, as now a Manichaean: for you see he speaketh of himself, as one believing the Acts of the Apostles, and believing it by a necessary consequence, because he hath already believed the other Canonical Books upon the [Page 48] same Authority of the Church. And if upon this Authority I may with St. Austin believe the whole Scripture to be Gods Word from the beginning to the ending, though it containeth so many strange Stories, & such a world of several points, why may I not upon the same Infallible Authority believe Prayers to Saints, Prayer for the dead and other like points? Neither can it be said, that St. Austin (as my Adversary saith) was settled in the belief of the Scripture for the authority of Scripture it self, for I have given you his plain words to the contrary, saying, that the Authority (of the Church) being weakned, he cannot now so much as believe the Gospel, which he might still do if he believed it for it self, and not merely for the Infallible Authority of the Church: yea, (l. de Utilit. Cred. cap. 14.) he saith, that his belief in Christ was grounded upon that Authority, which certainly he must then needs hold for Infallible. If he did thus and was never noted for singularity in his faith for doing thus, why may not I prudently doe what he did? Yea, how can I poor simple creature, not doe imprudently, if I refuse to do, what he did, who understood the Scriptures as well as any man the Church had?
27 Having now shewed the Church to be the Judge appointed by Christ for all Controversies, and that the Definition of this Judge is Infallible, and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith, I will now show that all this Doctrine must be applyed to the Roman Church, and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church. For first this Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim either to have any such Authority as being Judge in all Points of Controversie, or to the having any infallible Authority. If either of these belonged to her, she would know her own right, from which she now disclaims; and so by her own doctrine she cannot be Judge, or infallible; for so as an Infallible Iudge, she should judge her self to be fallible No more need to be said to exclude her or any other Church, acknowledging by evident and infallible Scripture [Page 49] (as they profess) their own fallibility, and that they are not Iudges in Controversies, being infallibly fallible, and so uncapable of these Priviledges, as is Evident. And even this might serve to exclude all other Churches, but the Roman. She onely claimeth (as she is bound to do) her due right to be Judge in all Controversies, and her infallible authority to decide them with truth. All other Churches of all other Religions doe say indeed, that they are themselves the onely true Churches, but none of them say themselves to be either the Judges of Controversies, or to be infallible. Wherefore they cannot be either judges, or infallible; for if they be true Judges, then they judge truly against themselves, when they judge it to be as certain as Scripture, that there is no Judge but Scripture; And if they be truly infallible in defining them, they truly and by infallible authority define themselves to be fallible, whilest they define it to be Scripture, that the true Church is fallable. Wherefore infallibly they are fallible, and consequently infallibly they are not the true Church, which we have demonstrated to be infallible, and all those Texts, authorities and Reasons must needs prove all Churches false that be fallible, whilest they prove the true Church necessarily to be infallible: But all Churches besides the Roman, by their own faith are according to infallible Scripture, fallible. None of them therefore is the true Church. If then the Roman Church be not the true Church, then Christ hath no true Church left on Earth, nor hath not had these many Ages.
Hence you may gather, why I never was sollicitous to prove all that was said of the Church by the Scriptures and Fathers to be said of the Roman Church: for whilest I did shew them to be said of such a Church as might be of an Authority infallibile and sufficient to ground Faith; It followed manifestly, that all was said of the Roman, no other being Infallible, and so Christ should have no true Church, if this be not a true one: For I have demonstrated, that no other can be Infallible. This being a Demonstration, until [Page 50] this Argument be answered, I hold my self bound to say no more, yet I must needs tell you in brief a small part of that, which I can and will say, if this point be again pressed: I will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this, St. Cyprian (Ep. 3. l. 1.) saith, that false Faith cannot have Access to the Roman Church. St. Hierome (in 1. ad Tim.) calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome, The Rector of the House of God, which St. Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of truth. And in his Epistle to the same Pope, he saith, To your Holiness, that is, to the Chair of Peter, I am joyned in communion: Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built. He that gathers not with thee, scatters. So the Fathers in the Councel of Chalcedon, at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome, said, Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And many such other places I will alledge, for which now I remit you to Stapleton and Bellarmine, who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief Causes. See this done in all Ages, in Bell. 3. De Verbo Dei, e. 6. I will shew also how all Churches of all Ages, which were not confessed Heretical or Schismatical Churches, have been ever joyned in communion to the Roman until St. Gregory the greats time, and then ever since; and how in his time England received the same Roman Faith, which now all Roman Catholiques professe, and all Protestants deny. And I will shew that this faith then brought into England from Rome, did not in any point of Faith controverted between the Roman Catholiques and the Protestants, differ from that undoubted true Apostolical Faith, which our old Brittains received from Rome, in the second age of the Church in the dayes of Eleutherius; and from hence the present Roman Churches communion in Doctrine with the Ancient Apostolical Church will appear. I will shew that perpetual visibility agreeth onely to the Roman Church, and consequently, that in her onely that Prophesie concerning Christ was fulfilled, That he should reigne in the House of Jacob for [Page 51] ever, and of his reign there shall be no end. We can shew how he hath reigned here by known and manifest Pastors of the Church, who have in all ages appeared in Councils to govern his Church. I pray set us but know the name of one of your Pastors, Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand ages, which preceded Luther. All are bound to be of the true Church, but to be of an invisible Church, having onely Invisible Pastors administring Sacraments in an invisible manner, no man can be bound to be of. I will shew that all conversions of Nations from Idolatry (so often promised to be made by the true Church) were all and every one of them made by such, as did communicate with the Roman Church; and no one Nation ever converted from Paganisme by those who professed Protestant Religion, or held these points in which Protestants differ from us. I will add also, that all who have been eminent for sanctity of Life, or glory of Miracles, have all been joyned in communion to the Roman Church; and you cannot name any one famous in either of these respects, whom you can prove to have been a Protestant, a most evident sign of the Truth of the Roman Church. Compare any other Church to it in all these points here mentioned, and you shall see all incomparably more verified in the Roman Church, then in any other differing from her, or agreeing with you, yea verified in none but her.
I have then I hope performed my Promise to shew a 29 clear way, how in the midst of so many Religions, to find the true One by the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church, which I have shewed to be the Judge in all Controversies of Faith, and of Authority sufficient to ground true Faith upon, and that when all this is done. This is that holy and direct way, so direct unto us, that fools cannot erre by it, and wise men must erre, if they walk not by it.
The Conclusion, Shewing the Reply to my Papers to have been fully answered in the former Discourse.
This Reply consisteth of Eight Answers, with a word or two at the end, and at the beginning of these Answers.
To all these in Order.
FIrst at the beginning, you say there is little reason for you to rejoyn, because I wave the Application of my discourse, as to the Roman Church. I answer, That my Position was, that the Church is the Ground of Faith: Of the Roman Church, it was to no end to speak, until I had been first granted that some Church or other was the Ground of Faith. A man must first prove to a Jew, that the Messias is come, and then he must prove that Christ was this Messias. Again, all my Proofs proved an infallible Church to be the ground of Faith, of which no fallible Church could be a sure Ground, as is manifest: But all Churches but the Roman Church, do profess according to Scripture themselves to be fallible; whence it followeth, that all Churches (but the Roman) must needs be fallible. For if they or any of them be infallible, then they teach the infallible Truth, when they teach themselves to be fallible. No Church therefore can be Infallible, but she who teacheth her self to be Infallible. Consequently, when I proved the 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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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. [Page 56] 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, you charge me in differing from my selfe, because before I taught the ground of Believing to be the Authority of the Church, and now I say, it is the Authority of God Revealing. My 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. God Revealing is alwaies the formal object of Faith, but sometimes God Revealeth his minde by Scriptures, and sometimes by the Church, as he did for two Thousand yeares and more, before the Scriptures were written. The Prophets before they did write, did say, This saith the Lord, to wit, this he said by their Mouths: So say I, This and this saith our Lord by the Mouth of his Church; as I have shewed Numb. 22. Saint Athanasius to speak, and I have shewed, Numb. 28. The General Councel of Chalcedon to have said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Pope of Rome. And thus Gods Revelation cometh to us by the Church: She and onely She teacheth us these and these Scriptures to be Gods Word. We must first believe her, before we can come to have Infallible Ground to believe Scriptures, as I have fully shewed. After we have believed Scripture, we cannot by Scripture onely know the undoubted sense of many [Page 57] necessary places in Scripture, as hath been shewed. Again, all things necessary to be believed, be not set down in Scripture, as hath also been shewed fully. The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church, you by your own words, in this place, must grant her Authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith.
At the end of these your Answers, you would fain seem to have spoken properly in accusing us of Excesse of Faith: But your distinction doth no way salve the Impropriety of the Speech, for there is still a difference in more believing Objects, and believing more Objects: but granting that it may be improperly spoken, yet even in that Sense it is not truly said, because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing what God saith; for believing upon an Infallible Authority all that we believe, we cannot believe more then we should, if we believe no more things, then be grounded upon that Infallible Authority (as we do not:) And consequently we do no more; then believe such things as have for their Warrant, This faith the Lord.
Having now answered your Paper from the beginning to the end, I am most willing to take your own close out of Saint Austin, Against Reason, no sober Man will go, against Scriptures no Christian, against the Church no Peace-maker; adding his other words (Tr. 32. in Joan.) Let us believe my Brethren, so much as a Man loveth the Church, just so much he hath of the Holy Ghost.
I Cannot answer it to God, nor to his Church with us, if I let you seem to your self, or to others of your perswasion, that you have the Victory, untill you have overcome your Error; therefore you will excuse me if I still follow you.
To your Preface then. If the Roman Catholiques have often foretold, that by permitting freely to all sorts of people the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother-tongue, multitudes of new Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberlesse number; and as for the peoples Manners, they would grow worse and worse (as you say in the beginning) then are your Roman Catholiques, in this, false Prophets; because they seem (by you) to make that the cause of Heresies and bad Manners. This is plainly fallacia non causa, or the fallacy of accident. And secondly, it is contrary to that of our Saviour Christ, Saint Mark the 12.24. Do you not therefore erre, not knowing the Scriptures, and the power of God? By our Saviour, the knowledge of the Scriptures is not the cause of erring, but the not knowing of the Scriptures is the cause of erring: You do therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto Salvation; as Saint Paul to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3.15. And thirdly, You confesse in this Paper, 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. And fourthly, How cometh it to passe then, that some of those, in whom [Page 59] Infallibility (as you think) is vested, have been Hereticks and lewd: the former of which indeed you do much deny, but is exemplified in Liberius's subscribing against Athanasius, as you may see fully proved by our Reinolds against your Hart. And surely was that also an action of bad Manners. Therefore if your Church were the true Church, yet doth it not (you see) teach the way of Salvation infallibly, and therefore can we not by it infallibly discerne the true Religion from the false. Indeed the Catholick Church hath taught the infallible way of Salvation: but that was the Scripture, as I proved by many Testimonies; and this was a teaching the infallible way by consequence, because it did teach the Scripture, which is the infallible way: yet hath it not in particular points, taught the infallible way infallibly. Neither are we by the Church infallibly resolved, that the Scripture is the Word of God, although the authority of the true Church be a motive herein, yet is it not that wherein ultimately we ground our Faith of the Scriptures, as I have shewed.
Whereas then you say that we cannot have, as things stand, any other assurance to ground our Faith upon securely (namely then the Church) you do still but fortiter supponere, for we cannot ground our assurance securely upon the Church. And secondly, Whereas you say, that as things stand, we have no other assurance, &c. you do not well consider what you say, or I do not understand what you mean: for hereby you do intimate that the Church is not the ground of our Faith, [...], but that which is indeed the ground of our Faith, must be so absolutely and universally, as farre as is necessary: the Church security is but the best of the kinde, amongst those which are humane; but we must have a Divine indefectible ground for our Divine Faith, in which there cannot be falsity. Neither thirdly, Is the Church the first ground, because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God; [Page 60] because, if we did by it believe the Scripture, then we are not first to believe it by the Scripture. And if whatsoever credence we do give to it, we do give by authority of the Scripture, then are we first to believe the Scripture, and then that is the first ground. Fourthly, In that you say you did never deny; that when we are by the Infallible authority of the Church assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God, we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture, &c. you say that which concludes against the practice of 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 [Page 61] 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: [Page 62] 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 [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] 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 [Page 65] 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 [...]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 [Page 66] 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, Caeti [...]s d [...] species facile concurrunt, ut, qua non vident qua sunt, & videre viatantur quae non [...]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, [...]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 [Page 67] 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 subf [...]a visibile, made good upon the Apostles (as [...]o [...]h [...] 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 i [...] 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; [Page 68] that way which the Church goes we must go [...] 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 [Page 70] were the Apostles, o [...] had it from the Apostles. And why doth he believe the Apostles? Because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost. Well, in what they wro [...]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 wha [...] 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 [Page 71] 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 5th. page of this Paper, which is grounded upon your interpretation of tha [...] 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; [Page 72] 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] 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 [Page 85] 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 [Page 87] Judge, and therefore your postu [...]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 [Page 88] 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 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, [Page 89] 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 [Page 90] 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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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, [...], and besides, that which is beside it as a Rule, is against it: For if any thing be a Rule besides it, then is that not a Rule. For a Rule or Canon, as it excludes defect, so doth it exclude excess, and therefore, in necessaries to faith and salvation nothing is to be added; as in the 22. of the Apocalypse the 18. If any man shall adde hereunto, God shall adde unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book. After the consignation of the Canon, nothing is to be added as he said.
And your glorious asserting (which follows in your Treatise) that you onely do truly believe the Scripture, because you onely believe it to be the Word of God upon Divine Revelation manifested by Gods Church, which (as you will shew) is infallible, is certainly not very sound: Because first, this is not yet put out of question that the Church is infallible. This you would beg and have to be granted unto you: therefore you passe the proof of it here, and skip from this to the denial of true faith to the Protestants. For this Demonstration we must wait your leisure. Secondly, we deny unto you any reason of this your glory in the belief of Scripture, upon this consideration; that the Faith of Protestants is more grounded then yours is: for whatsoever authority the Church hath towards this perswasion we also make use of as a motive to this Faith: and then we do resolve and settle and determine our Faith hereof by the autopistie of the word of God, which you say is the infallible Word of God. If it be infallible, it cannot deceive us. Neither can be it be said that we [Page 93] cannot be assured of its infallibility by its self; because we cannot be assured of the Authority of the Church, but by the Word of God. Yea, this is the ratio formalis of Divine Faith, to believe what he saith to be true, because he saith it: Therefore must we believe that the Scripture is the Word of God, because he saith it. And suppose the Church were Infallible, yet must we ground and terminate our Faith hereof in Scripture, unlesse it did otherwise appear Infallibly to be so, or else we are in everlasting motion to and fro: as, Why do I believe the Scripture to be the VVord of God? because the Church saith it. VVhy do I believe the Church? because the Scripture beareth witnesse of it. How do I know the Scripture saith it? because, again the Church saith so. You must then come to us and our principles, if you will have any grounded constitution of Divine Faith: we fluctuate, and hover up and down like the Dove, untill we come to set a sure foot on the ground of Scripture. The prime and indemonstrable principle of all Divinity, amongst principles complexe, must be this, that the Scripture is the VVord of God.
And hereupon, that which you say in your eighth page, That it is no where written in Scripture, that such and such Books of Scripture be Canonical, and the undoubted VVord of God, &c. makes no prejudice against us (and yet that which is quoted in Scripture from any other book, under such a name, is upon this consideration Canonical) for they are worthy to be believed for themselves. As we assent unto prime principles, in the habit of intelligence, by their own light: so do we assent unto Scripture, to be the VVord of God; through the help of the Spirit of God, do we see the Scripture to be the VVord of God, as by its own light. Therefore hath Faith more proportion to Intelligence, then to Science, since we see no reason to believe, but by the credibility of the object which hath upon it impressed the Authority of God. And this [Page 94] in effect, even Aristotle did see in his Rhetoricks, when he speaks of that which is [...], which is either by Humane Testimony or by Divine; in the latter whereof, that which makes the Faith, is the Testimony of God. And that testimony of Saint Austin, which your Bellarmin produceth against those who were for private Revelations, beside Scripture, in his first Book, De verbo Dei, cap. 2. (and he takes it out of the 12 of his De Civit. cap. 9.) infers as much in these words, Scripturae fides mirabilem autoritatem non immeritò habet, &c. The Faith of the Scripture, hath not undeservedly an admirable Authority in the Christian VVorld, and in all Nations, which, amongst other things that it spoke, it did by a true Divinity foretell would believe it. It hath an admirable Authority, not undeservedly; mark that, not from the Christian world, but in the Christian world, and in all Nations which it did foretell would believe it; not the Church, for they that were the Church were to believe it first: it did foretell by a true Divinity: if then we would use a scientifical argument, and intrinsecal from the Scripture, it, should be this, that what it hath foretold, is come certainly to passe; and what is come to passe, in the belief of it it did foretell. The humane Faith then, such as that whereby we believe Cicero's or Virgils books, is indeed yours; for you are they who have no other then humane grounds, and consequently an humane Faith, if your Faith doth rest upon the authority of Man. VVhat you have more to say to this, out of the virtue of General Councils, you refer me to in the 19 Number; but all the light they give comes from the Sanctuary of Scripture, and therefore what Light you have, must be more then Mans.
In the middle of your eighth page, you say you have a second convincing Argument: it is easily denyed to be a second convincing Argument, for it cannot be a second convincing Argument, untill the first proves so.
But the summe of this Argument is drawn from our uncertainty [Page 95] of the knowledge of the Scripture to be the VVord of God by our translations, since the Scriptures were written in Ebrew and Greek, which one of ten thousand doth not perfectly understand. But do you not consider that this Argument will rebound with more force against you, for you have nothing at all for your belief, but the Authority of the Church in your Translation Latin. Yea, the people must have no knowledge at all by any Translation which they understand, therefore their Faith upon this account is lesse Divine, because they have no understanding of Scripture by any Interpretation. Secondly, The Translations are the VVord of God not absolutely, but so far as they agree with the Originals, and therefore by them we do not ground our Faith as such: but we ground our Faith upon that which is translated to be the VVord of God, because God by his Spirit perswadeth us of it, therefore the Fallibility of Translation doth not destroy our Faith, for we do not build it upon a Translation; but this you do, you rely upon your Latin Translation,Session the 4. as Bel. in the 30. B. De verbo Dei, c. 9. 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 [Page 96] 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,
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 [Page 97] direct us to Heaven, for then he should contradict himself. Doth he not say in his 4th. 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 10th. Tome, De verbis Apostoli, Serm. the 13th. 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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 qu [...]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 [Page 102] 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 the Pope to be head of the Universal Church: and therefore are they not compared ad idem. Thirdly, Is it determined in Scripture, whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not. You say it is, for if you say it is not, you are all lost. Well, if it be determined by Scripture, then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not: and so this your Controversie is one of those, which is decided and concluded negatively, in or by Scripture. So this exception against us doth not thrive.
Another point of this kind you make, in your eleventh Number, about the Canon of Scripture, your Argument seems to be thus, that we should know the Canon is necessary: we do not know it by Scripture, therefore by the Church. Is it not thus? you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you. And therefore we answer; first, as at first (which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of) that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books, yet would it not follow from hence, that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith, and Manners (which you would fain have, as very [Page 103] [...]seful for you) unlesse ca [...]ally, for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular, then in other cases: since also, when that is made sure, that there are the books of Scripture, we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this. Therefore, if you argue, that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books, it is Judge of all matters, you do not rightly proceed from a particular. You are in that which is called, [...], and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality. Secondly, We are not to be assured by Divine Faith, that there are Canonical books, from the authority of the Church, and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein. We must beleeve them to be Canonical by their own Authority, otherwise we shall never believe them to be so: so that you see, we deny the Assumption, and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture, we have no other Divine Authority to know them by. They bear witnesse of themselves, they carry their own light, which we may see them by, as we see the Sun by its own light. For, let me put you to this Dilemma, either the Scripture is to be believed for it self, or the Church is to be believed for it self. If the Scripture be to be believed for it self, then have we our cause; if the Church be to be believed for it self, then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture, which your Bellarmine disputes against, in the beginning of his Controversies, and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical, and more uncertain then the word of God; judge you. And I pray is it not more fi [...] that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause, then the Church? but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it; then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church, and why not then other parts of it? Thirdly, If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books, how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal, [Page 104] as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book, De verbo Dei, cap. 9. amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbred to be by him accounted such, and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them; and then let S. Jerom's authority justifie L [...]ther upon your principles: for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical, as you and we do the Apocalyps. That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon▪ and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by it self without begging the question, hath litle of iudiciousness in it; for how do we see light? how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles? how do we prove that, which we apprehend by natural light? after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it, well, and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it, without begging the question? therefore you must come about to Scripture. And again, if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein, because the Scripture is not, you beg the question who are to dispute; not I, who am to answer.
Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition▪ at least in part of it; namely, that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him, as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark. We deny it. We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew, and St. Mark, as we distinguish them, are the word of God; but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them. It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture, save onely so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture, for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it: but Saint Matthew wrote it, as being inspired that it was the word of God, in the matter of it. If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it, it was answered before: if upon the title, it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith, that such was writer of any piece of [Page 105] Scripture. And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel, and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical, how then shall we end this Controversie or others about the Canon by Scripture; I answer. And do not Hereticks deny your Church to be infallible? will you therefore quit your opinion? So then either this argument is not good against us, or it is also good against you. Secondly, If Hereticks reject some books, we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholick Church to our faith of them by their own authority. And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular, as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says, in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem, In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholick Churches; amonst which surely these are they which merited (if you will construe it so) to have Apostolick seats, and to receive (Apostolick) Epistles. Observe that he saith, let him follow the authoritie very much, which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it, and of the Catholick Churches in the plural; not one only. Then there are more Catholick Churches in his judgement, and such are they which merited to have Apostolick Seas, and Epistles; then your Church onely is not to be called the Apostolique Sea. And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphall Books, yet is it to be noted, that herein he followed the authoritie of the Churches; Notwithstanding which, Saint Jerome, as before, did not receive them; which makes a sufficient reason to hold that the authority of the Churches is not a sufficient ground of faith in the belief of Canonical Books, or else St. Jerome (who in this may be compared with St. Austin for his judgement) is in the same condemnation with us.
Afterwards you plead, that since the Gospel of S. Matthew was written in Hebrew, whereof there is not extant [Page 106] any one Copy in the world, and it is not certain who or how faithfully he did translate it, we cannot be certain by the Scripture that this is the word of God; therefore by the Church. This I think is the sum of your plea. We answer.
First, Again we do not disclaim the use of the Catholique Churches in the credence of the Word of God: but this doth not certifie us. Secondly, You Catholiques (as you would be called) speak largely, that not one of the Ancients conceived it to be written in Greek; surely all the Ancients did not write: surely all that did write are not now had. But take it of all that did write and are now extant, and put it to be so that all were of Saint Jeromes Opinion in his Preface upon Saint Matthew, yet all that you say is not certainly true, that there is not a Copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world. For, (not to speak of the Hebrew Gospels set out by Munster and Mercer, which Ludovicus de Dieu takes notice of in the Preface to his Notes upon the Gospels) if you will give any heed to your Isidor Clarius, he will tell you I suppose otherwise; when he saith (in a little Preface which is a Testimonie out of Saint Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers) that St. Jerome there affirms, ipsum Hebraicum habetur us (que) hodiè in Casariensi Bibliotheca, which Pamphilus the Martyr, studiosissimè confecit, and that he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans, who in Beroea: City of Syria, do use this volume, to describe it. So he. Now it may be that remains there, and therefore you cannot be certain of what you say. And this is more then an ordinary Authority of the Church in an interpretation.
Again how come your Latin interpretation of this Gospel to be authentique if it was not taken out of an authentick copie: for the Church can doe no more then declare that which is authentique, then must it be authentique, otherwise they make Scripture.
Again let me give you one intimation, that possibly so might yet at first be written in Greek, my reason is this, in the first of Saint Matthew, 23. verse, it is said of Christ, they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is; God with us. If it were written in Ebrew, what need of any interpretation in the same Language, since the Letters of the Word put together, without any variation, do make that signification?
Again, if the Church hath made the Greek Translation authentique, why is your Latin made authentique? Is there two authentiques? If it be not authentique by the Church, what would you infer?
Again, the harmony of it with other Gospels, hath more in it to perswade Faith, then the credit of the Church.
Again, if it be an Interpretation, yet unlesse you do evince it, that we do build our Faith upon the Interpretation, you do nothing. Now then as your people do fix their Faith upon that which is interpreted, not upupon the interpretation: so may we build our belief upon this Gospel to be the Word of God by the illumination of the Spirit of God, and yet not upon the Translation. The Translation doth but conveigh unto our knowledge the words, but it is the Spirit of God that doth work in us belief thereof that it is the VVord of God. The Translation attends the Notification of the object, what that is which is to be believed: but it is the Divine perswasion which attends the act, and is the cause why it is believed: the Interpretation is but the Instrument of Faith, the ground of it is the perswasion of God, that it is the Truth and VVord of God: and therefore your argumentation goes upon a wrong supposition, as if we resolved our Faith in the Translation as such.
And what you except afterwards against the certainty of our Faith, upon the account of the Greek Translation, doth also return easily upon you; for the same possibility [Page 108] of error, is urged against your Latin, either by ignorance, or negligence, or on purpose for the upholding of your new opinions. And let me ask you, why you account your Latin to be Authentique? you will say, because the Church of Rome was infallibly assisted in it. VVas it then Infallibly assisted, when it renders the Ebrew in Genesis ipsa for ipsum, that it might be for the honour of the Virgin? VVell, but give it that the Latin was infallibly made by the Church, why not the Greek also infallibly made by the Church? and more confirmed by the Church then your Latin one? you get nothing then by this exception And this may satisfie you, how a Manichaan might believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew, which you put to the question. An opinion thereof he may have by the judgement of the Church, some knowledge of it to be the Word of God he may gather by the agreement with the other Gospels: but the Faith of it to be such, is to be wrought by the Spirit of God, whereby those who heard the Apostles, were caused to believe that which they preached to be the Word of God without perswasion of the Church, which was not then in a body, when some first believed.
As for the Fathers holding Books to be Canonical by the Church, we have spoken to already in this paper, and we shall meet with it again. You speak indeed of them as in general, upon designe, ad faciendum populum: but you do not name the places▪ onely Saint Athanasius, you are pleased to quote. VVe answer, if you mean that he received the Gospels, and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas upon the Authority of the Church, as the cause of his Faith of them, you do not prove it by what he saies: If you mean that he was induced to think well of them by the reception of the Church, and to refuse the other by their refusal, this doth not come home to the question. And suppose the Church its refusal of the Gospel of Saint Thomas, was sufficient for him to refuse it too, yet doth [Page 109] it not follow, that because the Church did receive the other Gospels, he received them no otherwise, then because they did; for this makes the reception of the ChurCh to be but as a necessary condition, not the formal cause of his Faith. As for Tertullians and Saint Jeroms and St. Austins authorities in this case, we shall finde an answer, when you quote the places.
The Testimony of Eusebius, which you produce as out of the third Book, chap. 19. is not there, according to that of Robert Steven in Greek, which came out Lutetiae Parisiorum cum Privilegio Regis.
In the ninth Chapter indeed of the same Book, there is somewhat of Josephus, that he gives the number of the Books of the Old Testament, and which are uncontradicted by the Ebrews, in the same words by them teaching as out of antient Tradition. But here we have but Josephus his opinion. Secondly, This is but for the Old Testament, not the whole Scripture. Thirdly, This is but as out of Tradition. Fourthly, You will not find in the next chapter, all your Apocryphal books. The Number he makes to be 22. in which Number Cyril of Jerusalem (in his fourth Cat.) excludes all but Baruch. Fifthly, After so much time which is past, he saies, no man durst add or take away, or change any of them. And that which he speaks at the end of the chapter that he followed Tradition, and therefore did not erre; if you mean that, it is not pertinent, for he doth not there speak of Scripture. Your flourish then as hereupon, must yet vanish. And besides, all signes are not able to make a certainty, the Tradition of the Church is not an evident signe: it is not [...], for the Church received some things and held them too, which you will not hold, as Infant Communion, and the Millenary Opinion; therefore can we not be assured in way of Faith (wherein there is no falsity) by the Church.
That of Saint Austin will be included in the disquisition of the main Testimony of that Epistle.
And to your question which of the Fathers, when they were asked, did answer, that they did believe the Canonical Books upon our ground; that which was said in the former paper of Saint Origen and Saint Athanasius, remains good untill it be answered.
In your thirteenth Number you object Luthers not seeing the Apocalyps, and the Epistle of Saint James, to be Canonical by their own light. VVe answer,
First, A negative argument from one is easily denyed to be cogent, when we cannot yeild it to the Church; because he did not see them, therefore they could not be seen, is no argument. Secondly, You see then hereby that we do not follow him in all things blindely, as you do the Church in whatsoever it proposeth.
Secondly, The Apocalyps was doubted of by others also, as you know by Ecclesiastical history, although now it is universally received. So also might Luther afterwards come to the sight of them to be Canonical.
And Thirdly, also other books have been scrupled, notwithstanding the authority of the Church, and therefore how is that a ground of their Faith?
Saint Austin you make use of afterwards for the Canonicalnesse of the Macchabees, upon the credit of the Council of Carthage, and also the book of Wisdome. To this we need say no more then hath been said, save onely we may hence observe, how uncertain we are of a ground of Faith, in the authority of the Fathers, when one sayes that which is contrary to the other. Answer you Saint Jerome upon the point, as before. And Saint Jerome, I hope, yet was a Catholick, and was not damned because he did not embrace the opinion of the Church in this. If the Church be Infallible to Saint Austin, why not to Saint Jerome? or one may see that which is Infallible, and the other not, then is your former objection thereby taken away. And you will hold Saint Austin no otherwise to have held the Macchabees to be Canonical, then he held the book of [Page 111] Wisedome to be Canonical, and you will hold that the Council of Carthage held the book of Maccabees to be Canonical, as Saint Austin held the book of Wisedome to be Canonical. This I suppose you will agree to without dispute. Well then, be pleased to take notice of what abatements and deductings may be found in Saint Austin upon the place, in regard of Equalitie of Respect which you think he gave to this book of Wisedome and to Canonical Scripture. First, it seems there was exception taken at the authority of that book, even in their Opinion of St. Austins judgement thereupon; and therefore he saith, Quasi & excepta, &c. As if, if this attestation were excepted, the thing it self were not clear, which we will have from hence to be taught, namely this; he was taken away, that wickednesse might not alter his understanding, which Saint Cyprian, he saith, had taken out of the book of Wisedome. And when he had discoursed the Truth of the sentence, he inferrs; which things being so, this sentence of the Book of Wisedome ought not to be rejected, which hath merited to be read of those who are of the degree of Readers of the Church by so long antiquitie; and then follow your words. Onely you may excuse me, if secondly I be a little critical; for it is not said there that it was received of all, but it was heard of all, with veneration of Divine Authoritie. If there be no difference, why doe ye not use the word? if you do falsifie, then it seems there is some difference, and outwardly they might give respect to it as Canonical, although whether in their apprehensions they did esteem it as such may be a question. But thirdly, you see it here to be somewhat distinguished from Books Canonical and to depend upon prescription; as if it were not so from the beginning. Fourthly, those who were Tractatours next to the time of the Apostles did prefer this book before themselves, which using this as a witnesse did believe that they brought no other then a Divine Testimony. So the Father, whereby is intimated that this was as deutero [Page 112] Canonical (as it is expressed) and not of proper name, Canonical; and also herein is signified that it was not so used in the Apostles times. And again, this Book had merited to be read by so great a numerositie of years, and afterwards he calls this sentence anciently Christian. So upon the whole matter you see some difference made betwixt this book and others by themselves Canonical.De Predestinatione Sancto rum, cap. 14. Peruse then the whole chapter, and you will see how little advantage you can make thereof. Indeed there is in the chapter a word which I know not whether I have rendred according to your mind; it is mereri, and yet I think I have interpreted it discreetly by meriting, that so it might be capable of the same Latitude; but I put you to your choice: How the Fathers use the word you know for obtaining. But if you will have it here to be construed by plain deserving, then we have an Argument against you: For if the book deserved to be read in the Church, then was it not accounted as Divine and Canonical, because it was received by the Church; but it was received by the Church, because it did deserve it by the matter. If you will not understand it here of plain deserving, then here is one place, where the Father useth the words not in the Roman sence; which may be made use of to another pupose about your opinion of merit; and also, if you will not mean it here of deserving, this makes some diminution of respect to the book: and some advantage more I shall make of this chapter in its place.
Many lines in your fourteenth page you have afterwards, wherein we have nothing but vaunts or repetitions: I will not trouble you with the latter, nor my self with the former: But towards the end of that page you would order the matter so as to hold your own, and yet to give Scripture its due respects. And you seem to bring it to this determination, that when there is an acknowledgement made that the Scriptures are in themselves the Word of God, it doth not derogate from Scripture to hold that [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] known Rule against Papists; and therefore that it must be made manifest by the Church is not necessary, for how was it made manifest to the first Church to be the rule?
As for the instance of yours, that Christ was made manifest to many by the Testimony of the Baptist and of the Apostles before the Scriptures were written, and yet this derogate? not from Scripture; We answer soon. First, It is yet to be proved whether the Church hath that inspiration as John Baptist and the Apostles had for the first planting of the Church; until that be made good, your Argumentation is not. Secondly, Although the New Testament was not written, the Old was, and Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles preached no other Doctrine then was contained in the Old. So our Saviour, If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me in the 5. of Saint Iohn the 46. verse. Thirdly, If Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles were believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church (as the first Disciples did) why may not the Scriptures be believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church? If the Apostles were believed immediately without the Church in what they said: why may they not be believed also in what they wrote?
And surely, to goe a little more close and deep, if we speak properly, there is not so much a ground of Faith, as a cause; if with the Schoolmen we grant (as we may) that Faith is a supernatural habit, infused by God, which disposeth the understanding to assert that which is said by God is true, because he saith it, not because the Church saith it. And if you say that the Scripture and the Church are not opposite; true, when the Church ruleth it self by Scripture. But if the Question be, which proposal is first, that of the Scripture, or that of the Church; here the Church is opposite to Scripture if it pretend to be first, for both cannot be first. Therefore the first Axiom in Divinity, and consequently of Divine Faith, must be that the [Page 116] Scripture is the Word of God: and then this Scripture is substracted as the ground of all particulars to be necessaririly believed; and therefore if we should have no other Faith of Scripture, then by the credibility of the Church, for ought is yet proved we should have no Divine Faith.
In your 14. Number, you go about to prove that the Scripture is not the appointed Judge in all Controversies: For many things (you say) are so set down in Scripture, that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church, doe arise about the true interpretation of the Scripture. We Answer,
First, here we see that you would have more to be the question then that, Whether the Church be the judge of the Books Canonical, and that the Scripture is the VVord of God. Therefore we follow you, and do say, Secondly, That it seems then the Question is onely who should be the infallible Judge to discusse and decide the debates which do arise about the sense of Scripture. So then again, those things which are plainly set down in Scripture (as the many necessary things are) are allowed to be believed without the voice of the Church: and therefore all points of Faith you cannot, it seems, include within the compass of necessary submission to the Church therein. Thirdly, your discourse proceeds not effectually to your conclusion, unlesse you can prove that the uncertainty of the sense of some passages in Scripture doth convince the necessity of an infallible Judge herein. Secondly, That we are infallibly certain thereof. And Thirdly, That the Church of Rome is it. These particulars are yet depending, and without their affirmation we may affirm that God hath well enough provided for the salvation of men in the Scripture, which is more easie to be understood, then the universal consent of all the Fathers; whose Opinions also must be held true as they are agreeable to the Rule. And also hath he provided wisely for us, in that he hath not left us [Page 117] to the Lesbian Rule of humane authority: and also hath provided for the peace of the Church, in that he hath given us direction of the Pastours; whom although we cannot absolutely believe, yet doe not impudently oppose.
Yet you will say, if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge (infallible you mean, otherwise you doe not contradict me) in all controversies, he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly, this importing so exceedingly as it doth; and yet he hath not done so. We answer, Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture, in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures; in that he saith, ye erre not knowing the Scriptures, as before: In that he said by Saint Paul that all Scripture is given by Inspiration and is profitable, &c. and that it is able to make the man of God wise unto salvation, as before; And by Saint Peter, 2. Ep. 1. cap. 19. we have a more sure word of Prophesie, to which you do well giving heed, as to a Light that shineth in a dark place untill the Day dawn, and the Day-star arise in your hearts. And as for Pastours of the Church, again and again we say, we deny them not a lawful use, or to them a lawful respect in things of God: but they doe but carry the Lantern in the dark. So that by this Light of Scripture are we directed unto salvation. Secondly, We turn the mouth of your Argument against you, if Christ had intended that the Church should have been the infallible Judge, it importing so exceedingly, he would have told us so clearly, and infallibly, which he hath not done. He telleth us all Scripture is given by inspiration; and this Proposition if we rightly believe, we believe upon its own authority, because it was given by inspiration: but it is not as clearly said, that the Church judgeth by inspiration. And if it doth, why doth it not determine all Controversies in the Church; and therefore is it either wanting in ability, or peccant in duty. Or if there may be Controversies in your Church without [Page 118] definition of the Church, why may not there be Controversies amongst us, without actual decision of Scripture.
And now, Sirs, let me have leave to speak affectionately to you, do you not see what dis-respects of Scripture (if not Blasphemies) your Opinion doth miserably betray you to, if you follow it? Would any sober man let fall such words? as if God had intended the Scripture for our Judge, such a book as the Scripture is. So you. VVhy? which often times speaks so prophetically, that most would think he speaks of the time present, when he speaks of the time to come. So you.
First, how are these words put together, so Prophetically, that, &c. would it seem to be more Propheticall to speak under the formality of futurition? but if it be Prophetical, to speak of that which is to come, as in verbis de praesens, then what can you blame in that part of Scripture which is Prophetical? Or do you think that it was not meet that in the Old Testament there should be somewhat Prophetical? Or will you think that God made that part of Scripture on purpose obscure, that there might be need of your Infallible Judge? Secondly, The Prophecies are not expressed in the Present Tense, which in proper the Jewes have not, but in the time past, to signifie the certainty of their accomplishment, and also, because as with God they are already done, since he looks upon all differences of time with one single act of intuition: and as for those Prophecies which respect Christ, they are so expressed, that thereby may be signified, that the merit of Christ did extend to some, even before the times wherein those particular promises were made, and therefore the manner of Prophetical expressions, is upon good reason easily discerned, if not by the people, yet by the Ministers of the Church, without an Infallible Judge.
And what then, if it speaks of Christ under the Type of David, when not onely the Letter signifies a thing, but the thing another thing, and one person represents another▪ [Page 119] Is not this for the excellency of Scripture, without such obscurity, when we believe David was a Prophet, and [...]hose which spoke of him were Prophets, and when we are in Scripture directed to such an use of Types. And if any thing be spoken obscurely, yet if it be a matter necessary, there are other Texts more easie to compare it with, and to expound it by, as your Aquinas in his first Page. 1. q. 9, 10. Articles. And therefore this exception is not able to argue the necessity of your Infallible Judge, no more then diversity, as you say of senses of Scripture; wherein it is to be understood; whereas there is but one sense of Scripture principally intended, which is expressed sometimes properly, sometimes improperly. As for the mystical Divinity, you know it is not argumentative, but where it is declared in Scripture. And as for the setting out of things Spiritual in way of Translation from things Temporal; you may consider it is necessary, if you will believe your Angelical Doctor, because, (since our Knowledge comes here by sense) we cannot for this state understand them, but by compare to things of sense: so that there must upon this account be Metaphors; and what are Allegories, but Metaphors continued? And as for the Tropological sense, which respects institution of life, that is not difficultly found in more clear precepts. Again, if by impropriety of speech, we should conclude an absolute need of an Infallible Judge, then how should we Infallibly be guided by the opinion of the Fathers, since so many of them, especially Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen (who were of the antientest of them) are so full of this obscurity?
And as for your Objection, that both Precepts and Councils are delivered in the Mood Imperative; you cannot reasonably conceive that we should be so ignorant and credulous, as to think that we should swallow down, without chewing, this your supposition, that there are Counsells of Perfection, above things of Command, for when [Page 120] we have done all, we must say that we are unprofitable Servants; we have done what we ought to do, St. Luke the 17. and 10. Unprofitable, not onely to God, (as your men distinguish) but also unprofitable to our selves, because we have done but our duty, if we did as much as we could, which none does, and yet if we did as much as we could, we should not do so much as we should, since the Commands of God are given to us, according to the tenour of our ability in Adam; which we lost by our own fault. Our obedience therefore, by it selfe, cannot be profitable.
Another default you will finde or make in Scripture, that it doth no where set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals. But do you think in earnest that this is a cogent argument for your cause? The Scripture doth not set down a Catalogue of Fundamentals, therefore it is not to be the Judge of Controversies.
To your Antecedent we say, that the Scripture doth give us every particular point which is necessary to be believed, although it doth not give out the Number thereof formall and material, how many and which they are.
Secondly, It doth not onely afford that which is simply necessary, but doth furnish us with many other particulars, so that it is an abundant directory for our use. And therefore is there no defect of Wisdome in this Law-maker, when he gives us such a Law that Infallibly contains all necessaries and more, and when those necessaries are not onely plainly delivered, but also what is not plainly delivered, is thereby signified not to be necessary.
Thirdly, Again, we admit humane dijudications of doubts emergent in some points, and they have their use with us, without Infallibility.
Fourthly, Either the Scripture yet, notwithstanding this, is it whereby we must be determined in points of Religion, or else the Church; but the Church by the same [Page 121] argument, is not the Judge, because it doth not define whatsoever may be necessary to be held by a full Catholique in your sense. Whether the Pope hath Temporal power or not, is not this necessary to be determined? if it be determined, how came your Heart to deny it? then whether he hath power Temporal directly, as the Canonists, or indirectly as others, is this determined? then how came Bellarmin to go against his Conscience on one side or other? for he varied herein, as your Widdrington speaks of him. And Widdrington he is another against his power, in his Apology for the right and Soveraignty of temporal Princes.
And why is not the question decided, whether the Pope be Superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiasticall, which the Sorbonists deny? Are not there high points which are of weight to move an Infallible Conclusion? Not to speak of Gods predetermination, or whether the Virgin Mary was Conceived without Original sin. How is then the Church the Infallible Judge of Controversies? If you say that the Church determines as much as is necessary; well then, and so hath the Scripture, which you acknowledge is Infallible: but are not the former points necessary? what can you instance in which is more necessary, and not determined in Scripture? If our Salvation, as you hold, be in jeopardy for not submitting to the Infallible Judge, what can be of more concernment then to know Infallibly who he is, and what power he hath, which yet your prudent Religion will never make a determination of?
After this you taxe our Doctrine to be contrary to Scripture, and first in the matter of Extream Unction by Saint James. We say (if you say right, that it is clear against us by Scripture) then the Scripture hath decided this question, then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies. And yet at the beginning hereof, you speak very warily and discreetly it seems. If by this term you would have us believe, that it is not evidently declared [Page 122] against us in Scripture, then we need say no more as to this case. If it be manifest by Scripture against us, and you mean your word (seems) as Aristotle and others use it, in way of Elegance, or of course, then it doth not abate the tenure of the affirmative; and then what need we any other Judge? so are you held by this Dilemma. Secondly, That command of Saint James imports no Sacrament as you would have it; but doth relate to the gift of Healing in those times.
Another example of our difference from Scripture, you presse the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be in our sense. We answer first, You say the words of Institution are clear in this Sacrament, in which any wise Man would speak clearly; and yet afterwards you say this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide. How far are these from a contradiction? if clear, then either is decided or needs none, but it is for your turn that it should be clear and not decided, clear against us: not decided for you. VVell here again you incur the former inconvenience, which I will let passe. Secondly, The words indeed are clear for the nature of a Sacrament, which under a visible signe represents a spiritual thing; and so therefore for the condition of a Sacrament, any wise man could not speak more conveniently then in a figurative sense, because it is symbolical to the Sacrament. For if the real presence as you mean, be corporal, then is the property of the Sacrament destroyed, because the signe is turned into that which is signified. And you are in more capacity to yeild a figurative sense here, because elsewhere you do object too much of it, and here too little. Indeed if Scripture had no other handling but yours, it would after it, more need an Infallible Judge. Is there no more likely-hood of a figurative sense in the words, then there is of the being of an Accident without the Subject; or of the Body of Christ, to be in Heaven and on Earth, and in thousands of places at once?
But you contend the improbability of this sense, because he took the Bread and the Cup in his hand, and said this is my Body, and this is my Bloud. Surely this makes no prejudice against us; for this was necessary towards the consecrating of that Bread and that Wine, otherwise there would have been a Consecration of Bread and VVine in Communi, and therefore he spoke demonstratively, and this demonstration makes the Subject no lesse capable of a figure then the Praedicate; and what difference? Behold the Lamb of God, or this is the Lamb of God. So in the 9. to the Hebrews and the 20. verse, Moses having taken the Bloud of Calves and Goats said, This is the Bloud of the Testament. VVas that Bloud transubstantiated into the Bloud of Christ? or when one takes his Testament, may he not say this is my VVill, although it be but the signe of his Will.
You take notice also, of the different opinions there are about the sense of the words of Institution. We have no cause to take it to our selves, who have not such variety of conceits therein. Neither can you, I am sure, justifie your Infallibility by your accord herein, since some question whether it be transubstantiated, and therefore have they a proviso of a conditionate adoration, Adoro te si tu es Christus, and so many amongst you differ about the manner of the change; whether by production, which supposeth (as is noted) the Body not to praeexiste, and this is false; or by adduction, which supposeth against Transubstantiation, or by a kinde of Conservative Conversion, which is little else then a Contradiction in adjecto, therefore answer your self. How is it more clearly defined by the Church, which was scarce in debate till the time of Berengarius? Did the Church all that while want necessaries to Salvation? But lastly, you should not have pleaded Scripture for this point on your side, if you will believe Scotus, and your Cardinal Bellarmine; who sayes, that Scotus held Transubstantiation could not be clearly proved by [Page 124] any Text of Scripture and he himself thinks it not improbable. Therefore herein you cannot, in their judgement, convince us by Scripture, and therefore till the Church be Infallible, it is no doctrine of Faith; as it was not before the Lateran Council, as Scotus affirmed by Bellarmins Confession, in the 23. chapter of the third Book, De Sacramento Eucharistia▪ but if Transubstantiation be not declared in Scripture, then our opinion negative to you is more secure, and is not concluded not to be in Scripture, though you or others will not professe it.
In the former part of your 15. Number, you go over a former argument again, to which the former answer may serve. As for the other part of your Paragraph concerning all the points of Saint Athanasius's Creed, which are not clearly delivered in Scripture, and yet he that will be saved must think thus. I answer, Although the matter of them be not in terminis, found in Scripture, yet the sense of them according to aequivalence may, as well as Transubstantiation, when you will endevour to make it out by Scripture. Secondly, Although we believe what is said in his Creed, yet therefore are we not bound to believe it by the Authority of the Church, since he would have held it, although the Church had not, as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church, in the Consubstantiality of the Son of God.
In the beginning of the 16. Paragraph, you say somewhat which you had said before, to it we say nothing, but you raise a new opposition. Baptisme of Children to be necessary to their Salvation, is a prime point of Belief, and yet you cannot believe this prime point of Belief by any clear place of Scripture, therefore you mean all necessary points are not clearly believed by Scripture, therefore by the Church; this must be your dissertation, and your minor proposition you confirme by the Testimony of Saint Austin. We Answer, first to your Major, by distinguishing a necessity of Baptisme in general, it is necessary by [Page 125] necessity of precept, but it is not necessary by necessity of mean to the child, so as that if it be not baptized, it is undoubtedly damned; the former respects the Parents, that they should take care of it for their children, but if they do not, or the child be taken away as many are before it can be done by a lawful Minister, we cannot conclude it or them absolutely perished; since it is not so necessary to them that were of age at the Primitive Institution, Saint Mark the 16.16. Whosoever beleeveth and is Baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned; not also, and is not Baptized: For many there were, and cases might be put, that there might be more which could not have Baptisme before they died: as appears by your Vicarium Baptisma, which the Fathers speaks of. Then, though we may well assure our selves, that if Infants rightly Baptized die such, they are certainly saved: yet can we not as reasonably passe the Verdict of Damnation upon those which are not Baptized.
As to your assumption, we also distinguish, if you mean we cannot believe this Poedobaptisme by any clear place of Scripture, namely, in terminis terminantibus, as they speak expresly, we grant it: but this is not enough for your purpose. And if you mean it cannot be clearly believed, because by consequence it cannot be proved, or because it cannot be clearly beleeved since it is beleeved by consequence; then we deny your assumption in both regards. For whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the vertue of the principle, and therefore clearly we may beleeve it. Now the institution of Baptisme in general by Christ; the substitution of it to circumcision (since there is the same Covenant in substance to both Testaments) is a sufficient Principle to infer the necessity of Baptisme of Infants, besides what may be supposed by baptizing whole Families. And therefore this is none of those things which are not grounded in Scripture, and therefore no Object of the Church Tradition. And therefore [Page 126] Saint Austins Testimony will come to no more then this, that though they had nothing for certain alledged out of the Canonical Books in this point, yet the truth of Scripture is kept when they do that which seemed good to the Catholique Church; namely, so far as the Catholique Church keepeth the Truth in clearing that which is not plain in Scripture. Which Church the Scripture doth commend, as he. But is it cōmended for infallibility? If not, this Testimony and all your Testimonies and all your instances which you have of things not determined in Scripture, but determined by the Church, will doe you no good, for you must prove that they were and ought to be infallibly determined by the Church upon necessity of salvation; because you would conclude your postulate of the necessity of an infallible Judge. Now then if those things were not infallibly determined, the instances thereof are of no use to you. And you may consider that we may in things of practice (which in their nature are of free Observation, as being neither commanded or forbidden by the Scripture) and should follow the Church therefore to bring it to an issue: Either this Poedobaptisme was Infallibly followed by the Church or not, if infallibly, it was so by the moments of Paedobaptisme in Scripture, although not perspicuous. If not infallibly, yet might they follow the Church, and should in this Case; because if it had been free to them to have done so or not in regard of the thing, yet should they have gone in the way of the Church, when there was nothing to the contrary; much more should they conform in this which had that reason in the Analogy of Scripture; and therefore this Testimony of the Father need not move us, wheresoever we find it; for I cannot find it by your direction. Give me some better direction to find the following of the Tradition of the Church to be the most true and inviolable Rule of Truth reduplicatively namely, upon its own account, and in things necessary; then I shall say more or yield.
He holdeth therefore (you say) the Tradition of the Church so infallible that it may be a ground of Faith. Here are two things to be said. First, that he holdeth so of Tradition, which by other Testimonies is to be proved. Since, Secondly, he doth not hold it therefore of Tradition; since these words of Saint Austin doe not draw after them the nature of Tradition in your sence; which doth not depend upon the written Word, as this doth for the reason of it.
And you believe Saint Paul taught him so in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 2.15. Hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our Epistle. To this we answer, premising the state of the Question; whether Doctrine of Faith not depending upon the word written do oblige Faith equally to Scripture. Now we say, that these Traditions might respect Order and Ceremony, or History, and so comes not within compass of the Question, in regard of the matter. Secondly, Though it will not please Estius upon the place, yet nothing hinders but that it might be meant of the same matter, which was first preached, then written; and then should hold it or them, as first preached, then written; and this is a second answer, in the place doth come into our question in respect of the matter; for the Syriack renders it, Mandats, Commandements, which do not signifie formally matters of Faith. Thirdly, The Thessalonians might be sure that what they had from him by word, was such as they should believe equally to what was written: but so cannot we be of your Doctrines of Faith which you say are handed from Generation to Generation. Make us as sure of them in regard of Divine Inspiration and communication to us, then urge our Obedience equal. And this will give you an account of Saint Chrysostome upon the place, who meaneth no otherwise, then that which they had from God by him, whether in word or writing they should hold, which they could beleeve; we can not for such Traditions, having n [...]t [Page 128] that certainty of them. Read the whole of him upon that Text; and also do not passe by the Observation of this modesty herein: we may think it worthy of beleef, namely the Tradition of the Church, which whether he means it of things of Discipline and order (wherein we deny not conformity to the Church) we are not sure of; but there come not up to our Question: for they are not of Faith, and do not equally oblige.
And hitherto now you have gone about to assure Christians of a necessity of an infallible Judge; now in your 17. Paragr. you will assume that the Catholique Church, is the Judge. Then the Roman to be the Catholique prudently.
The text you name for the Catholick Church is that of Saint Matthew in his 16 Chap. the 18 Verse, I say unto thee thou art Peter (that is to S. Peter by name) thou art Peter (that is thou art a rock) and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, &c. And now surely you are at your strong hold, which you think cannot be undermined or stormed, true, if your application of it were as sure as it.
But we are not careful to answer you in this assault. First, we deny your interpretation of the name of Peter, you interpret the Greek, that is a rock; it is denied, the Greek word doth not ordinarily, and not here signifie a rock. And if you will not believe me, take this argument, Cephas signifieth a stone: [...] (Petrus) signifieth as Cephas, therefore a stone. Both propositions you have proved, as you may see, in S. John, 1.42, 43. as in the Syriack, Thou shalt be called Cephas, that is a stone; [...], as in the Greek; which is interpreted [...], a stone. And because Cephas is known in Siriack to signifie a stone, therefore the Syriack doth not add these words [which is interpreted] and that Petrus signifieth as Cephas you have there; for Cephas is interpreted by Petrus, therefore your interpretation is not right.
Secondly, If you say, as you did before, that the Hebrew [Page 129] was the Original of Saint Matthew's Gospel; then are you not nearly obliged to the Syriack which is but a dialect thereof? nay likely the very Dialect of Hebrew, wherein it was first written, if not in Greek, and then not onely can you not interpret [...] A Rock, but [...] neither; and then you cannot render the following words as you do, And upon this Rock, &c. For the words in the Syriack are letter for letter the same; both the name of the Apostles; and the word which you render a Rock, are the same, [...] both, and therefore if you will stand to the Syriack, it will come to this, Thou art a stone, and upon this stone will I build my Church. And this will have fair Correspondence with that of Saint Paul in the same Metaphor, Ephes. 2.20. Built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. So that the priviledge of Saint Peter here was onely this, to lay as it were the first stone, in this Foundation. Nay thirdly, [...] in the New Testament more then once signifieth a stone, Rom. 9. last. it is synonymically joyned there with [...] where [...] is joyned also to the same Metaphor, in that it is said [...]; for this must signifie a stone of offence; for whoever stumbled at a Rock? and therefore a scandal in the Church is by Aquinas defined by that which gives to others an occasion of falling. So also in the very same manner are they put together by Saint Peter himself in his 1. Ep. 2. Verse 8. And we have reason to think that Saint Peter did understand the sense of Christs words to him, and the reason of his name.
And thus for your Interpretation of this Text.
As for the application of it, we say first, whereas you referre this to the Person of Saint Peter, you may know that you differ from the Ancients, who did refer it to the Confession of Saint Peter, and not to his act of his Confession, as his; but as to the Object, which was confessed, which your Isidor Clarius may be thought to aim at, when he Expounds, super hanc Petram, super hanc fidel soliditatem. [Page 130] For Piscator notes well that this rock cannot be meant of Saint Peter; because S. Peter is one of the believers which were built upon this rock. And therefore one hath a conceit that Christ spake [this rock] [...] pointing at himself; as where he sayes destroy this Temple, pointting at his body, and so the copulative may be understood by way of Ebraisme; and upon this rock, but upon this rock. Secondly, as Saint Peter spake here for the rest of the Apostles; where that which is granted is common to him with the rest of the Apostles, as that which follows, and I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven: unlesse you can Evince it that that which is here promised or given to Saint Peter, [...] really different from that which is given to all the Apostles in the 20. of Saint Iohn, the 22, 23. verse, and then shall you do more then you Hart in his Colloquie with Rainolds. There is the same power and authority under the same Metaphor; For what difference will you make betwixt binding and retaining, and loosing or remitting▪ so then let me ask you this question: was the primacy of authority given to Saint Peter here at that time, or after the Resurrection given, here promised? If given here, then after this priviledges of Infallibility, Saint Peter denyed his Master; therefore somebody of yours, and Bellarmin, as I remember, wittily imagineth, that this authority was given to Saint Peter after his Resurection, that so the successors of Saint Peter might not have the possibility of denying Christ entailed upon them: If promised there, given then, where will you finde any Text more symbolical then that of the 20. of Saint John forenamed? and that was given to the Apostles communiter. Therefore if [I will give] respects the future, and after the Resurrection of Christ, as Isidor Glorius doth note; then confesse it to be accomplished here, or name any Text, which hath better allusion thereunto. And if the Superiority of Saint Peter was neither given nor promised here, where [Page 133] then? and why is this Text made to bear false witnesse by you for you.
Thirdly, This Superiority of Saint Peter in jurisdiction, as to be Prince of the Apostles, as your men speak, is flatly contrary to our Saviours own Order in the 20. of Saint Matthew, the 26. verse; for when James and John the sons of Zebedee, were petitioned for by their mother for preheminency; Our Saviour said, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, & those that are great exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so amongst you. Then here is the Controversie determined by our Saviour in Scripture. St. Peter then was not to have any authority over the rest. Not that from hence can be argued, that there should be no one Superior to Presbyters, as Sectaries would urge it; but none of all the Apostles to be superior, to have dominion, to exercise authority over the other of the Apostles. Here is a plain Text for the paritie of the Apostles, which destroyes the foundation of the Roman Church, which now you speak for.
Fourthly. Put case Saint Peter had been constituted Prince of the Apostles, and of the Church consequently, yet have you another infinite labour to make good the succession of these priviledges to the Bishop of Rome by Divine Right. Why not rather to Antioch and Jerusalem; since also by a Divine Faith we cannot be ascertained, that Saint Peter was ever at Rome. We do not deny it, but yet by you it is not made out to be an object of Divine Faith, that he was there. And to name no other prejudices against you in this, you are put to very hard shifts for the pr [...] [...]hereof, when you are compelled to interpret Babylon [...] the 1 Ep. 5. c. & 13. v. of St. Peter to be Rome. Certainly had your men any other Text for it, they would not have given us this occasion and example to interpret Babylon in another place to be Rome. And yet also Isidor is somewhat tender in this Exposition, it is not very likely, saith he, that it should be understood of [Page 132] that Babylon, of the Assyrians, or that in Aegypt, but it is admodum credibile, very credible that it is meant of Rome.
And Estius upon the place cites the first Author for this Interpretation of it to be Rome, to be the same who was the Father of the Milinary Opinion, namely Papias. But fifthly, The former Text of Saint Matthew is not to be meant of any Church of one Denomination, and if so, it had been meant of one not of Rome. For then the promise had not been made good of not falling into damnable errours, for so the gates of Hell should prevail against it. The gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Rome, Head and Members; as you may see more at large in the Discourse of Raynolds with Hart. What say you to Liberius his subscribing to the censure of Athanasius, and did not he subscribe to the errour then which Athanasius withstood? And were not the Members included in the Head? And ought not they to do so as he under peril of damnation? But sixthly, whereas you say that by Christ the Church is secured from any damnable errour, we have enough against you by this intimation; if you mean it distinctively, as methinks you do. For you insinuate here that Christ doth not intend her exemption from all errour, for then you are in greater danger of not being the Church unto which that Favour is granted: but he doth here free it from damnable errour, because else the gates of Hell should prevail against it: So then again it is not necessary to salvation to be free from all errour. Well then upon these two concessions that the Church of Christ may be obnoxious to errour, though not damna [...] because again, every errour doth not damne, we exclu [...] the infallibility of the Church, for it may erre it seems: and also we exclude the necessity of such an infallibility, for we may be saved notwithstanding some errours, and what need then of an infallible Judge since in points of question simple errour is not damnative? and where indeed shall we have [Page 133] an infallible Judge, if there be fallibility in any particular; If the Spirit of God speaks in the Church by infallible assistance, cannot the Spirit of God infallibly determine all points? or if it assists infallibly only to material Articles which are necessary, then do you give us a list of your Fundamentals. And also for Fundamentals we need not such a Judge, having them with sufficient plainnesse in Scripture which is Infallible. Upon the whole matter then, there is a possibility of their erring, without Infallibility, and of our erring without damnation: So that your first error is an Infallibility of a Judge; the second, the necessity of such a Judge; and a third is this, that no Church can prudently be held to be the Catholick Church, but the Roman.
But ought we not to disturb your delight, you take in holding a Religion prudently? prudently as if we were to choose a Religion by interesse, which prudence doth rather direct to, not by sapience of the highest speculative principles, which direct the understanding: but to let that passe. We onely note hereby your pronouncing this main Text, for the Authority of the Church, that what Authority it hath, must be resolved into Scripture, then is that the first and highest principle. That the center of Truth, wherein we must rest, and the further we go from that, the further from Truth. And the greater circumference we draw, the lines are the remoter from that, wherein we must acquiesce, as being the Word of God.
Yet you say here we see the Judge, which Christ hath warranted from bringing in any damnable error, therefore may we securely obey. So you. But where is your connexion in this argumentation? Either you distinguish damnative error against that which is not damnative, or not. If not, then in your opinion all error is damnative; then take you heed of this, for this is one. Or if you do distinguish it against error damnative, yet may we not securely obey this Judge, because then we may be bound [Page 134] to obey him in an [...] and so should the understanding be obliged to assent to error, which is impossible, and he must act against his Conscience, even in his assent, which is a contradiction.
And that none may disobey this judge securely, the Text you bring Matth. 18.17. will not evince to your p [...]pose. For first, it concerns matters of Trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother, not matters of Faith, and thus it is Eccentrical to your [...]esigne. Secondly, It concerns refractorinesse of the person, not unbelief of the Understanding; and so the Authority of the Church may binde against the former, though not against the latter. Thirdly It respects Excommunication by censure, not determination of a point by Infallibility, and so also is not proper to your cause. And fourthly, It may erre in the Censure, and therefore Excommunication, eo ipso, doth not damne, as Unbelief may. Neither am I bound to believe the Censure is just, unlesse it appears to be so. Fifthly, This power belongs to every particular Church; and to the several Prelates thereof (as you speak also in the number of multitude) and therefore is not appropriated to your Church. Sixthly, It doth not follow, a fortieri, as you would have it, nor yet at all, that because the Church is to judge of private complaints, therefore it can judge infallibly in causes of greater importance: by its authority it doth the former, without Infallibility it does not the latter. The former of them doth not conclude against me, and the latter cannot be from hence collected. As for that which followes, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, as far as it regards Excommunication, must be also taken specificatively, & clave non errante, as they speak. And this toucheth the person unto the submission, not the Conscience; as to renounce that which it apprehendeth as true: for then should Athanasius have been bound in Conscience by the Censure of the Church to have been an Arrian.
Then from the peril of disobedience to this judge, you gather that this must supposse the judge not to be fall [...]ble in such prime causes, as must concern the Church; and all such causes are those which may bring [...] damnable errors. So you in the [...]nd of that Number.
But your premises being destroyed, your Conclusion is ruinous, and yet also you do not conclude punctually, according to an Ele [...]ch; for you conclude it not fallible in prime causes of main importance, but you should in your proof conclude it not fallible in any thing: for if it be fallible in any thing wherein the error is not damnative, then you doe not conclude it infallible. Yea, though it should not erre actually in any decision, yee followeth not from hence, that it is infallible. For Infallibility excludes all error in whatsoever i [...] doth propose or decree, and also the possibility of error. Therefore prove it thus, and then an infallibility of our knowledge of it, and infallibly what is the subject of this Infallibility, and then I shall stand up to your Creed. And if you would go the right way in this dispute, you should use another method: for whereas you would argue the Church to be the judge, which we cannot safely disobey; if you could make this sure (which yet is not done) yet you should rather goe this way synthetically, the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define, therefore it is the Judge which we ought to obey in all things whatsoever it [...] out▪ but your discourse from uncertain decisions and inconveniences doth not bespeak any credence of your infallibility, much lesse of our knowledge thereof.
Now we follow you into your eighteenth paragraph. And here we meet with St Austins suffrage in his 20. de [...]in. cap. 9. where he comments upon these words of Rev. [...].4. I fan [...] thro [...], and they sate upon them, and judgment was given them. So the testimony. And what from hence? Because the Praeposits judge on earth, therefore infallibly, then every Church which hath Praeposits, should be [Page] Infallible. Doth this follow▪ we deny not their Iudicature, but their Infallibility. Conclude thus, or you agree with us.
Then you [...]y to the Old Testament, Mal. 2.7. For the Priests lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall require the law from his mouth. So you. And you note, besides a great corruption in our English, which rendreth the words, the Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law. We need not answer that this Text hath nothing for you: Is it meant of the Priests at Rome? If not, how belongeth it to you? but to the Priests of the Church [...] what an general? what then do you get by this? Secondly They keep Knowledge sufficiently for the people. Do they keep it Infallibly▪ If not we are agreed. If infallibly, how are the Priests taxed in the following words for not doing so? And if the formality of speech doth import a promise in the future, not a duty in the Subjunctive: yet the promise doth not include an impossibility of error; no more then the promise made to your Church, as you suppose, doth exclude all error, but that which is destructive. Thirdly, The future in the Hebrew, doth not contradict a subjunctive in the interpretation, when the scope bears it, since the Hebrews, as you may know, have no proper Subjunctive. And it is proper to the scope to understand it as of duty, they should keep knowledge, whereupon [...]ey are charged for breach of duty, therefore our Interpretation in this, is more sound then your dispute upon it.
And therefore that which you say in your 19. Number, that any man may ask the Priests of the Church, what is the Known Doctrine of the Church, & then let him rest securely; when he knowes that, that is unreasonable because the Priests are not Infallible. May he not rest more securely in Scripture? for the Church in all things is not as before infallible, the Scripture is, in all which it proposeth: but the Church you say, is not in danger of taking in any damnative [Page 129] error. Well, but the Scriptures sets out none at all; but all things are not determined in Scripture. Well, but all things are not determined in the Church; but all things necessary are taught in the Church, which may keep us from damnative error. Well, and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture? why then not to the Law and Testimony? why to the Cistern, when we may have it at the Fountain? why not to the Scripture particularly, when what Authority the Church hath, it hath from the Scripture in general? and why doth your Church take away from the people the use of Scripture? and why may not we be informed as sufficiently by our Priests, as you by yours, notwithstanding this Text? especially since we go by Scripture, you by Tradition, or humane definition. And if the Priests of yours were Infallible, can you say Infallibly that they will not deceive you? How miserably then do you provide for the poor people? when you would have them require at their mouth, not the Law of God, but the Doctrine of the Church.
That which comes on in the same Number about Tradition before Scripture, was answered before it was written. The Word, in the Substance of it, was before the Church which was begotten by it, and when there is now as much need, and as great certainty of Tradition as formerly, then urge it.
And I thank you for Saint Irenaeus's Testimony, I do not lye at catch; but the most convincing dispute, is by our Adversaries principles; not the Fathers but yours, as you apply them, for we can make very good use of his words. If the Scripture had not been left to us, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveyed to us, as the Gospel was before it was written, and this confirmes for me what was said before: but now I assume, the Scripture is now left to us, therefore is there no need of certain conveyance of Tradition to us. Surely you have a minde to help us for your own good.
Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations you speak of, did rely onely upon Tradition, they might be commended to the doctrine of the Gospel by Tradition, and then not believe it for the sake of Tradition, for this is the state of the question: Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten, is of equal authority to Scripture. Secondly, If you say Salvation was written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, this may be meant to be done not onely beside Scripture, but besides Tradition, and thus was it done extraordinarily. But why? Thirdly, Might not the Holy Spirit infuse Faith of the Gospel into those Nations, by some of those who were Apostles, or sent from them to Preach it; and then the Tradition you speak of is the matter of the Gospel which is written, and so it doth not appertain to the question of Traditions of proper name, which you say are beside that which is written, though not against it; and then your discourse is fallacious from that which is the object of the Gospel delivered, to that which is beside it delivered, which ambiguity of the word Tradition if it doth deceive you, yet doth it not consequently deceive me: but if you mean Tradition here, onely of the manner of communicating the matter of Scripture without writing, then the former answer may satisfie you, that Tradition was then more certain, and they were more assured of it by the Spirit of God then we are now. And also it might be to them, as the Star to the Wise Men for leading them to Christ. By the light of the Star they were guided to Christ, but when they came to him, they saw him not by the light of the Star, but by the light of the Day: so some might be directed to the Gospel by Tradition before they had the Scripture, and then believed it by the light of Scripture.
You add also, neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages, as they could [Page 131] all, or the greater part understand. So you.
This is readily denyed: for God did take care that the New Testament should for the most part of it at least be first written in Greek. And the Greek you know in the notion of the New Testament, is contradistinguished to the Jew, because so many of the world, besides the Jews, were Greeks; and the Greeks Language was the most common then, and therefore saith Tully in his Oration for the Poet Archias, Graeca per totum orbem leguntur. And God by his gracious Providence, hath taken care that the Scripture should be translated into divers languages, as you may know, that so several Nations might have it familiar to them in their own Tongue; which must condemn your Church, for not permitting of it ordinarily to the people in their own dialect; and also doth conclude, that Tradition is no Infallible provision for a rule of Faith, for how shall the people undoubtedly know that the Traditions were clearly discerned, true from them which were false; and also that they were faithfully handed through so many Centuries to the present time. And yet if so, this would not be sufficient for your use, unlesse you or others could finde these two points more, one how to evade a Circle, by proving the Traditions by the Church, and the Church by the Traditions: and the second this, that those Traditions have Infallibly decided the differences betwixt us, which the Antients did not professedly handle, as having not provocations thereunto. If any thing be touched by the by, you may know the rule, Aliud agentis parva autoritas.
In your 20. Number, you make a recapitulation of what you think you have done, and I think you have undone, untill you come to
Sixthly, I have found a lawful Judge, who can be informed of all Controversies 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 [Page 132] this Church, or if we doubt, we can propose our doubt, and she will tell us clearly her meaning, whereas the Bible, &c. cannot do so.
This hath in it somewhat new: your discourse in brief, may be under this forme. That which can hear you and me, and be heard by you and me, and resolve doubts of its meaning, is the Judge; the Church can do thus, the Scripture not, therefore the Church is the Judge, and not the Scripture.
We easily answer, If you understand the proposition of a formall Judge, so we grant it, and do not say the Scripture is the Judge, but if you mean it so that nothing can be in any Kind a Judge, but that which doth so, we deny it and your assumption too; for the Law is in its kind the Judge; and so may the Scripture be, as I have shewed before in this paper. And unless the Ecclesiastick Judges (whereof we do not reject a lawfull and good use) doe rightly declare Scripture in the application of it to particular Causes, (wherein the authority of the Church, as some of your men will sometimes say, doth consist) I cannot possibly hold my self bound in Conscience to yield my judgement therunto. So then secondly, unlesse you put into the premisses, that that which heareth you and me, and is heard by you and me, is the infallible Judge, and then that the Church doth so, your discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench, for so we grant all as to the Church, for this may stand with our cause, but if you do put in infallibility, we deny both the one and the other Preposition. Thirdly, by this Argument you exclude Tradition from being the Judge: for doth that hear you and me? Is that heard by you and me? but you say the Church doth determine hereby, then may it determine by Scripture more securely, and more universally. Fourthly, is not the Heretique Saint Paul speaks of in his third chapter to Titus the 10.11. verses, [...], condemned by himself, or of himself? how that? not by principles of natural [Page 133] Knowledge: for Theologie is supernatural, and therefore needed a Revelation of it from God, you know not by a Revelation immediate Extra Scripturam: for then how should he be condemned of himself? Not by any definition of the Church, which was not then sufficiently formed thereunto: no nor yet by Titus; because then as before, he had not been condemned by himself; then he was condemned by himself, because he had in him the Principles of the Word of God, which he gainsaid by his contrary Error: So that it remains he was condemned by the Law of God. And therefore that can judge you and me; not externally, and by voice: but internally by vertue of Conscience; which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemning of Errors in us; so that this Scripture it is, or the Word of God which passeth Sentence in the interiour judgement, as you speak, and this absolves some who in the outward Courts are condemned; and condemneth some who in the outward Court are not condemned. And therefore it is not only lawful, but necessary for us sometimes to dissent in our judgement, because they may erre in their dijudication.
And as much your own reason suggests in your 21. Number; wherein you acknowledge it to be necessary that there should be infallibilitie in the Judge of faith; And then you would state or estate this infallibility of the Church of Christ thus, that a Pope defining with a Lawful Generall Councill cannot erre. For it is no necessary article of faith to believe that the Pope or Head of the Church cannot Erre when he defineth without a Generall Councill. So you.
Alas, Sir what Cautions do you stand in need of in this grand and capital and Comprehensive Controversie; which affords me Liberty to think, that that is not the ground of Catholique Faith, which is intricated with so many windings; and guarded with such accurateness of Cautions, [Page 134] that render it very suspicious; and therefore not to be plain and a direct way so that fools cannot erre: for who can be certain by a Divine Faith of the Lawfullness and regularitie of your Pope in his Creation, and when there was Pope against Pope, who of the people could distinguish the right? And this is now possible because then in facto. And who then could decide the question: for the infallible judge you say is your Pope with a Council. Which of them could then determine it and in his own cause? Or could your Council determine it without a Pope? but I hope your infallible determination could not be without the Head of the Church; And who according to your Doctrine, should call the Council? for you say that power is vested in the Pope; Well, suppose no doubt of the legalitie of the Pope; how shall we by a Divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and Generality of a Councill? for you know Ecclesiastical History is full of instances of Councils, which were called by the Emperours and not by Popes, to whom you say it doth of due belong to call Councils; else they are not lawful. And how shall we know whether every one of the Council hath a free Election to it, and a free decisive vote in it? How much of faction may be looked for in a Councill, when there is so much in the Election of a Pope; such exclusions, such bandyings? What Council was ever called by a Pope wherein Religion was not made to serve his interest? Is not he who hath power of preferring like to domineer in such Consultations? And how shall ignorant souls be divinely perswaded that the Council i [...] General? If it be easie to discern it, then had your Tren [...] Council great infelicity to be so contradicted by the French Catholiques. And how many Bishops in the Trent Council furnished with a Title to overpower them with Votes on the Popes behalf. So that he answered well who said about the question which is superiour, a Pope or a Council; a Pope was like to have the more voyces, because he [Page 135] could confer Bishopricks, a Council not. What clue can a collier have infallibly to guide him through all those Labyrinths?
Secondly, If the infallible Judge of Faith be the Pope with a lawful General Council, how was the Church provided for? when for so many years there was neither Pope in your sense, nor any Council?
Thirdly, If the Pope and the Council do differ about a Question, what shall be done in that case? yet if the Question be which is superiour to the other, the Pope or the Council, what shall be joyntly agreed? and is not this a main question between the Sorbonists and others?
Fourthly, If the Pope with a lawful General Council be the infallible Judge, then how will this be reconciled to the Pontificians, who assert the Government of the Church to be Monarchical by Christs Institution: for if part of the authority be in the General Council, then is it not all in one, the Pope. Or if the Council be called onely ad Consilium, and they have no Votes decisive, how doth this agree to all the former Councils, wherein they had authority of Vote; and he may determine without them as to advise, since he determins without them in the authority; and suppose they advise him to let them have power of Vote; he can yet determine against them.
Fifthly, How many Councils have been opposite to one another. In which or with which did not the Pope erre? The Nicene and that of Ariminum as before decreed, contrarily; one for the Arrians, the former against them, which did not erre, and yet if neither had, did ever any of the ancient Councils determine of their own infallibility?
And what think you of Nazianzens Opinion about Councils, in his Epistle, to Procopius, the 42. Shall I tell you it? I have no mind to derogate from General Councils, but if you would have me tell you his judgement, it is in such words, [...], &c. I am thus affected, as to shun all meetings of Bishops (if I must speak the truth) [Page 136] for I never saw any Good end of a Synod, nor that had an end of the Evils more then an addition. Nay, did not the Bishop of Bit [...]nto break out into these words in the face of the Council at Trent; I would that with one consent, we had not altogether declined from Religion, to superstition, from Faith unto infidelitie from Christ unto Antichrist, from God to Epicurus. Did he not say so?
And this may serve for your Answer to all the rest of this your Paragraph. We cannot think it strange that the definition of a General Council should be fallible, until you bring forth your strong reasons to induce my assent, that such assistance was ever promised to a General Council, as the Apostles and Prophets had; or that any General Council had such assistance; or that there was the same reason of such assistance.
And to say no more of this point, measure the infallibility of the Trent Council by the determinations thereof in things of Religion, and see how they agree with Scripture; which you say is a rule of Faith: and by this Argument be you judge of the infallible Judge. Let us not see your Opinions by infallibility which you pretend: but do you see your infallibility by the determinations it did put forth; namely such wherein we differ, and therefore I need not name them.
In the 22. Paragraph we have recapitulation, and a passage of Luther, which you use as an Argument ad hominem.
We Answer, you do then hereby give us occasion to shew our ingenuity to truth, that as we follow him and any other with it, so we will not follow others or him without it. But secondly, If this book was written after his recession from the Church of Rome, it is not meant of the Roman Church, but of the Catholique Church; which yet he doth not here compare with the Scripture, but with a private man; which seems to be spoken against Enthusiasts. Neither doth he say that it is not lawful to doubt of the [Page 137] Church that whatsoever it saith is true; but that it hath the Revelation of the Father; to wit because it hath the revealed Word of God with it. Or that the undoubtednesse of it doth not belong to it per se, but per aliud, because it hath for its priviledge the Revelation of Scripture; And thus it maketh not for you.
Now this brings on your forecited passage of Saint Paul to Tim. 1.3.15. Where the Church of God is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth.
And you aske, May not men rely securely upon the pillar of Truth? May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth? no ground being surer ground and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self? So you;
Supposing the words read according to this way, we answer; There is a double Pillar, and a double ground; one Principal, the Scripture; the other lesse principal and subordinate, the Church; now as this pillar and this ground is subordinate to the main pillar and ground, we may rely and ground our selves: but then the principal reliance and grounding must be upon that which is principal, the Scripture. For let me ask you likewise, what is the Pillar and Ground of the Church? Is it not the Scripture? then the Church is but the pillar and ground by accident, because that doth rely and is grounded upon the Scripture. And therefore the Scripture is the more sure and infallible ground: because what truth the Church hath it hath by participation, and it is possible for it to hold forth and to have hung upon it somwehat which is false, according to your own confession (as I conceive you) although not damnative. And this doth well corroborate my inference from Saint Irenaeus words of the Scriptures being called the Pillar and Ground of Truth; that therefore it is the Ground of Faith, yes very rationally, because it is the prime and supreme pillar and ground of Truth. Yet you will raise a consequence upon mine for your cause, thus. If this consequence be strong (which I deny not) there is yet [Page 138] a stronger, that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the pillar and foundation of Truth. So you.
Sir, What do you mean? Do you make any difference betwixt the ground and foundation? Do you mean that the Scripture is the ground of Faith, but the Church is the Foundation? This is your sense I suppose, otherwise how a stronger Consequence? For there is no comparative, but where there is some difference. And if this be what you would have, then I think I may say, I have what I would have, and yet we are not agreed. For then you confesse what I have hitherto held, that the Scripture is the ground of Faith. You said at first that the authority of the Church was the ground of Faith: I said the Scripture was the ground of Faith; and now you say as I say, that the Scripture is the ground of Faith, and so your contradiction is come into my affirmation. But yet we are not agreed in that which you now superadd, that the Church is the Foundation of Truth; the Scripture is the Ground, the Church the Foundation. Is it so? then have you changed the Question. And why had we not the right state of it at first? And was it not enough that the Church should be the ground of Scripture, but must it be the Foundation in a more excellent sense? I must not let this passe for your sake.
First, what gives you occasion from the Text to assert the Church to be the Foundation, signanter, I do not see. For the word in the Greek [...] doth not signifie a Foundation, but that which doth uphold, support against falling; and therefore, Isidor Clarius and Estius doe interpret it by firmamentum, not fundamentum. So the Church holds forth, and holds up the Truth. Therefore your meaning of Foundation above ground, hath neither Foundation nor ground.
Secondly, can you conceive and say, that the Church is a Foundation of Truth comparatively to Scripture? Is not the Scripture the Foundation of the Church: The Scripture [Page 139] in the substance of the Word, was before the Church, because the Church was built upon it; then the Scripture in the substance of it, was the Foundation, and is now, being written. And that which is the first Principle of all must be the Foundation of the rest; and the further we go from it, the lesse security we have, because we go more into discourse which is uncertain. Now, the first Principle is Scripture, not the Church; because the Church is proved by Scripture, and you proved even now, or would have done, the authority of it by Scripture. The Church may give Testimony of the Scripture: but the Scripture doth not onely give Testimony of the Church, but doth ground it, and constitute it, and distinguish it, and upon it, it is built, then this is the Foundation. The Church is built upon the Scripture, not the Scripture upon the Church. As the Law hath it self to Justice, so hath the Scripture it self to Faith. Now the Law is the Foundation of Justice, not the Judge: so is the Scripture the Foundation of Faith, not the Church, which you say is the Judge. For as the Judge is built upon the Law, so is the Church upon Scripture. And as the Judge is to go by the Law in his proceeding and sentence, otherwise he erres; so is the Church to go by the Law of Scripture, otherwise it doth erre. And as the Law is not to be proved, it being the first Principle in Justice, so is not the Scripture to be proved; for it is the first principle in Faith. But as the sentence of the Judge may be examined by Law, so may the determinations of the Church be examined by Scripture, since the Judge may erre, and so may the Church. But first prove that it hath not erred, and then you will have another work to do to prove it cannot: For the Faith of a Christian immediately is resolved into that which cannot deceive him. And prove that it cannot erre, and therefore is the infallible Judge; or if you can, prove it the back way; it is the infallible judge, therefore cannot erre.
Nextly, You make some perstriction of my Criticisme [Page 140] (if it may be so called) and yet not mine neither, but of others also; whereby the termes, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, is referred to the commendation of the Mystery of Godlinesse, after the Hebrew fashion, to give these Praefaces of respect to so grand and sublime doctrines.
Here you are pleased to smile, as if I had forgotten that this Epistle was written in Greek, not in Hebrew, and also you say no Hebrew form in the world can make that sense he intends.
Sir, Will you please to give me leave to be even with you in a smile: but no, I have no minde to rejoyce in any mans imperfections. Soberly I reply, that I do well remember in what Language it was written, and therefore I make it to be an Ebraisme, in our use of the word, which speaks a following of the Hebrew form in some other Language. And he that doth not understand that there is many of these Ebraismes in the Greek of the New Testament, doth not understand so much as I would desire. And therefore, that which you say, that no Hebrew form can make my sense, is not to be answered. And to follow you, although the Apostle had not spoken yet of Godlilinesse, or the mystery of it, might he not put this form of commendation in the front of the Doctrine of Godlinesse? as as also in the first Epistle to Timothy, 1 Tim. 1.15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ &c.
Neither have you any cause to object the reading of the words in our English, since the distinction of Verses is not Canonical, nor yet our English so accounted by us; notwithstanding we have as much reason for it, to make it as good as your Latin.
But your Adversary sayes, you say, that this Title of being the Pillar and ground of Truth, agrees in the first place to Scripture. Yes, and so I do still, and have shewed it so: but you say it belongeth equally to any thing that is the true Word of God, and therefore agreeth to [Page 141] the Scriptures, because God speaketh in it; and by it. Right, hold you there. Rest your self here. Set up your staffe here, for you can go no further, unlesse you will go up to Heaven, and the Church Triumphant.
But God also speaketh by his Church, and in his Church; yes, unto Authority, not Infallibility, and therefore that which followes, remaines to be proved by you; that he doth give as much Infallible assistance to the Church in a Council (where is the Pope? have you a minde to the opinion of the French Catholiques?) as he gave to him who did deliver his Word in Scripture. It is utterly denyed. And you may see plainly hereby how the Roman Tyranny over your Conscience (as they would perswade you) draws you necessarily into this perill of Blasphemy: for herein it appears, that now there is no need of Scripture, since God speaks as Infallibly by his Church, as in his Word. And this some Pontificians do lean towards. And then those by you should be called Enthusiasts, not who oppose a private Revelation to Scripture, but to the Church; if God speaks as infallibly by his Church, then speak no more against Enthusiasmes, or if you do, we shall tell you the story, that one was accused to Alexander for being a Pirate; so then said he that was accused to Alexander, I am a Pirate with one Fly-boat, and you are not, because you have a Navy. So the private men are by you accounted Enthusiasts, because they have but their own singularities for their bottom: but the Church of Rome is not to be charged therewith, because they have so many with them. And yet it may be, if Infallibility were to be determined by Votes, whether it did belong to the Words of God onely, or also to the Word of the Church, you would go neer to lose it; for all Churches hold the Scripture Infallible, and you too: but no Church but the Roman holds the Church to be Infallible, and then also you must assume that you are the Church, otherwise you would not hold it Infallible.
You say again, it is objected, that in these words, rather the office of the Church is set forth then her Authority. To which you say, your answer is clear, that her Authority cannot possibly in short words be more set out, then by saying that she is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, &c.
But the question is, whether these words 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, [Page 143] 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 [Page 144] 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 [Page 145] 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, Ut sic, quatenus errer, it is false. All simple errour is not damnative to the person. And therefore Christ may be with some who live in some errour indeed otherwise with whom is he? For who is there that lives not in some errour, though he knows it not? If you mean then damnable errour distinctively, I grant you all; and yet you have nothing thereby for your cause. For this doth not prove infallibility to your Church. Security from damnable errour (distinctively taken) doth not infer absolute infallibility. The former is promised, as also in that of Saint John. 14.16. (which you would reinforce here;) but absolute infallibility is not intended. And this you must have, or else you are utterly lost. For if the Church be not infallible in all that is proposed by it, how shall I be assured of any particular thing which it proposeth? If I be not assured of this particular, how am I bound to believe it? If I be not bound to beleeve it upon its proposal, how is it [Page 146] the ground of Faith Divine? If it be not the ground of Faith Divine, then you are gone. And besides those promises in Saint Matthew and Saint John you may know were made as to the Apostles equally, and therefore to their successours equally; and to the Church universal equally, by consequent; and therefore cannot you appropriate it to your Bishop and to your Church.
Saint Austins authority in a passage of his, wherein you say he speaks admirably in this De utilitate credendi, cap 6. you had better have omitted. It strengthens your cause nothing, if you quote it as you should. First it is misquoted for the chapter, for it is not in the 6. chapter, but in the 16. Secondly, you may see in the beginning of the chapter, that the scope of it is to shew how authority may first move to Faith. And Thirdly, this scope may discover your corrupting of his Text; for it is not as you give it, a certain step, but contrary, an uncertain step, velut gradu incerto innitentes; as in the Froben Edition, [...]N. M. D. lxix. Whereby you may perceive how little reason we have to credit your infallibility. And then Fourthly, part of his authority in that chapter, is by miracles of Christ which he did himself on earth.
The summe of your fourth Number is this, to perswade not onely that the Churches authority is infallible if it judge conformably to Scripture; for so even the Devil himself is infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures: but that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable errour shall be against Scripture: So that when we know this is her Doctrine, we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood. And this you would prove by two Testimonies of Scripture.
We answer distinctly, and First to that you say about the Devil. First, we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil: but we are injoyned to consult with the Church of God. Secondly, we have cause alwayes [Page 147] to suspect the Devil, because either he doth not give us all the Scripture unto a particular, or doth pervert it; or doth speak the truth with an intention of deceiving the more: but we have more charity towards the Church, we have none towards the Devill. Thirdly, Yet though we do not believe the Devil in point of truth, upon his authority; neverthelesse can we not believe the Church in whatsoever it sayes to be true upon its authority: neither doth it follow, that the Devil should hereupon be the pillar and ground of Truth, when he said that which is conformable to Scripture, as well as the Church, because the Church doth hold and uphold Truth: so doth not the Devil, but when he useth it, he doth it to destroy it: and again we are moved to think that which is proposed by the Church to be true, so are we not moved by the Devil to conceive it to be true upon his saying so. And therefore if I do believe that, which the Devil saith conformable to Scripture, to be true; and do not beleeve that every thing which is said by the Church to be conformable to Scripture; I do not make the same account of what is said by one and by the other. For that which is true I doe beleeve because it is se [...], though the Devil saith it: I do beleeve it in respect to the matter without any respect to the Author; and that which is not true according to Scripture, I cannot beleeve though the Church saith it; yet am I moved by the authority of the Church to consider the point more, because it is proposed by them: and what is by them proposed according to Scripture I am moved to beleeve of, with respect of the Authour of the proposal: but cannot be resolved in my Faith of, but by the authority of Scripture. And therefore I cannot beleeve that whatsoever is said by the Church is agreable to Scripture, because the Church faith it: for this proposition, for ought as yet proved, is not agreable to Scripture rightly understood. And if you say that your Church must judge the sense, let it first judge whether it doth not beg the principle.
Neither have your Texts alledged any thing for you. Not that of Daniel, the 2. chapter, the 44. verse. It respects indeed the Kingdome of Christ in general, and therefore is not proper to any Church of his signa [...]ter, for any thing can be shewed by the Text. Secondly, The Kingdome of Christ principally respects the Church invisible, which as such is not our guide. Thirdly, it may certainly come to its everlasting reign in Heaven, notwithstanding some errour on earth by the Church visible. Fourthly, whereas you say it shall destroy all Idolatrous kingdomes, you doe very well add in your Parenthesis [Idolatrous Kingdomes] to save your selves from suspition. But it all Idolatrous Kingdomes, then have you reason to make your infallibilitie more strongly infallible; otherwise you will be included in this distraction.
So also that of Esay 59.21. profits you nothing, some of the former answers may serve; it principally is intended for the Church invisible, which by the Church visible may sufficiently be directed through the means of grace to salvation infallibly, without infallibility of the Church. As the Word of God was certain before it was written, and the Church then was by it directed, because it was then in substance of it though not written (as we have said before, but you compell us to repeat) so by the Word written infallibly, though not infallibly expounded and applied by the Pastours of the Church, shall the Church be brought to Life. For if every evil action doth not destroy the state of salvation, as you will confesse: then surely every simple errour cannot, because it is not voluntary. And this is fully able to answer your Appendix to this Number at the end of your paper. Those Testimonies (if they be rightly cited) yet in those terms affirm no more then 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. [Page 150] I said, if you consider the whole ten [...]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 [...]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 [...]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 [Page 151] 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 [Page 152] 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 is [...].
You go on in your Paraphrastical discourse. 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. So you. Out of which words of your own, you may learn how to understand the sense and tense of the Father in the place: But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel; then he had believed the Gospel before, and was not to believe it now, and therefore his words must be referred in the African idiotism, unto the time more then imperfect, otherwise what he had believed, he was to believe now, which cannot stand with your Infallibility. And yet you say afterwards, mark if his ground be not so as I told you; because (saith he) I have believed the Gospel it self upon the preaching of the Catholiques; therefore if his Adversary should say, do not believe the Catholicks, he doth not go consequently to force him by the Gospel to any Faith to Manichaeus. And hereupon you break out in these words, Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their Teaching, then upon this to believe the Gospel it self?
Answ▪ Again these words do not include a Divine Faith of the Infallibility of the Church, which you must have, or else your cause is starved. Because those words, I would not believe the Gospel, unlesse the authority of the Catholick Church did move me which must be the principal ground, do not include his Faith of the Infallibility of the [Page 153] Church. He might be moved by the authority of the Church, though not resolved in his Faith by the Infallibility pretended, & according to this proportion must all his discourse be understood, which proceeds from his belief of the Gospel by them, to his being perswaded by them to Manichaeism, if any thing should be found in the Gospel towards it, or else proceeds to his not believing of Manichaeus, upon his belief of the Catholicks, who bad him believe the Gospel and not Manichaus. These must be the hinges upon which the whole disputation must turn, and therefore if those words be not understood of an ultimate determination of his Faith by the authority of the Church, but of an instrumental moving, nothing will be concluded sufficient and sufficiently for you. But this answer you give not me any return to. Ponder it very well, for its importance in this debate. For if the whole chapter was soberly spoken; and if that he did not speak of himself, as when he was a Manichaeu, yet if he here intends to signifie no more then onely the authority of the Church was an impulsive to the belief of the Gospel, you will evince no more then what you need not contend for, because we do not contend against it, as being not the state of the question.
Therefore it remains for you to prove your supposition, or your proofs of an Infallible authority of the Church, which indeed you would put in, in your conclusions, but is wanting in the premises. And if it did belong to me to dispute, it were not difficult to shew the contrary. And since they may come in upon account of the reason of my denial, they shall be there two moments from the chapter.
First, Because he saith he did believe the Gospel per illos, not propter. Now what we do properly believe any one in, we must believe for him, not by him; for him as a cause, not by him as an instrument; and therefore we believe what God sayes to be true, not by him, but for [Page 154] him. And if the Apostles, as he sayes▪ were not [...] of their Faith, 2 Cor. 1 [...].14. then were not those Catholicks he speaks of such, as he ought, for themselves to believe.
Secondly, Because in several places of the chapter, he doth signifie, that if any reason could be given, or any thing whereby it might be manifestly known, that his Adversary were in the right▪ he would leave his Catholicks. Now this is not spoken consistently to the nature of Faith, upon Infallible authority: for what we do believe in way of Faith, we do so believe, as there cannot be a falsity in it, as Aquinas doth confesse, and I suppose you too (for you would conclude, no falsity or error can be in any thing, which the Church doth define, because it is infallible) and therefore all the Reason, and all the Science in the world, are not able to shake Faith, whereunto the contrary is intimated in the Father. Nay, if there be no arguing to the principles of Faith, from other principles, but from the principles of Scripture, there is arguing to Divine conclusions; then assuredly Faith in principles of Theology (as this is one, the verity of the Gospel) is not obnoxious to any decay by any reasons. And it seems his Faith then in the Gospel, was not Divine, upon the consideration of their authority, since Reason may be valid against Humane authority, but not Divine: so that had he meant, he built his Faith of the Gospel, upon the authority infallible of the Church, there had been no place for Reason to have any power of assent on the behalf of the Manichees.
Again, if you hold to the Gospel, my hold shall still be to the authority of the Church, upon whose authority I believed the Gospel. I (saith he) will hold my self to those, by whose teaching, I have believed the Gospel, and there commanding me, I will not believe thee. So you think that this is also available for you: surely nothing lesse: for besides that, you omit much of his connexion that makes [Page 155] for my former argument, and also that [...]kes against your rash and blind believing: besides that you may understand that here he doth not compare the authority of the Church, with the autopisty of Scripture (which is the [...] of the controversie) but he doth compare the authority of the Catholicks, as towards the belief of the Gospel, with the authority of the Manichees, as to believe their false Gospel of Manichaeus. Indeed the authority of the Church is more urged, and is more usefull to prevail abo [...]e, or against the authority of private opposites; but w [...] that it hath the moment of credibility above, or equally to the authority of Scripture it self, is that which is an question, and is not here determined for you.
But you go on. And Saint Austin goeth on so far upon this ground as a ground Infallible. What, of Faith▪ it is again denyed, not onely simply but it is denyed to be held so by him in this discourse. If you may have your suppositions, we must needs soon have done.
Well, go on. That he saith, if perhaps you Manicha [...]us can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus, that then indeed they shall weaken the authority of the Catholicks. So he [...]aith. And what can you make of this for your use▪ Take it by it selfe and it will come to this, that a clear place in the Gospel would perswade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholicks: then he would hold clear Scripture above, or against the authority of the Church, then their authority is not in his judgement Infallible: or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture; and one in his opinion of them, (the Scripture) is more Infallible then the other (the Church) which is incongruous; for in Infallibility there is no degree, no more then in Truth. And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him; this spoyls all your cause, for you say you go to Faith by the Church, because that way is more plain &c manifest [...]
Therefore you hasten me from this passage to shew me what will follow. But what do you think will follow? I pray note it well their authority being weakned (and shewed once fallible) now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel. And why so? because upon the authority of these Catholicks I had believed the Gospel. So you.
But do you see how you interpose your glosse in your Parenthesis, thus; their authority being once weakned, and shewed once fallible. Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition, and shewed once fallible: as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible, and there were no weakning of authority, but to make it fallible. Authority may stand with Fallibility, for we grant Authority to the Church, distinguishing it from Infallibility. And if you had done so, you had saved many a wound, which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word, Infallibility, as one of your own men happily confessed. Neither therefore doth it follow, that the authority of the Catholicks being weakned and shewed once fallible, he could not at all believe the Gospel, because by the authority of the Catholicks, he had believed the Gospel; but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church: for the first, Christians believed the Apostles severally, without the authority of the Church. Yea, if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel, their authority, by whom he did believe it being weakned, yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily, that when he did believe the Gospel, he did believe it upon an Infallible authority; because, although he could not believe the Gospel without it, yet might he account it as towards belief, but a condition, not a cause of his Faith. And this you must have, or else you do not contradict. Whatsoever is necessary to an effect, is not the cause of it; although whatsoever [Page 157] is a cause thereof is necessary to it.
Therefore that is not so, which again you say that the ground of his beleef in the Gospel was their infallible authoritie; as not only these, but also the next words shew manifestly. When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question? when shall we have any more then supposals of it?
Let us see your next words. Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus, then I will beleeve the Catholicks rather then you: but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle; then neither will I beleeve the Catholicks nor thee. Why so? I will not beleeve the Catholicks, because they (whose Doctrine I thought infallible) have lyed to me concerning the Manichaeaus. But I will not beleeve thee, even when thou citest clear Scripture (for of this case he speaketh) and why so? because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now beleeved upon their authority who have lyed to me. So you.
And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature, unlesse you did make good another Parenthetical supposition, whose Doctrine, I thought infallible? This is not in Saint Austin, but comes from your own private Spirit. And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary: surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it.
Secondly, May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint [...]ustin, that in the Testimony here, he might speak as in some heat of Dispute? For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not beleeve clear Scripture which was cited by any one, because Catholicks had told him otherwise? Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement [Page 158] from your Aquinas? or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin? Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Summes, the first Part, the first question, and the eight Art. Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt; for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books, but not upon the revelation, if any other was made to other Doctours: Nay, he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19. Epist. a little after the beginning, Solis enim Scripturarum libris, &c. For I have learned to give this honour onely to the Books of Scripture, which are called Canonical, as to believe most firmly, that none of the Authours thereof did erre in writing any thing: but others I so read, that whatsoever holynesse or learning they are excellent in, I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrot so. Compare then this passage with the other, or the other with this; and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles, or did not speak the former as a disputant.
Thirdly, Let me note, whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin, as speaking of his beleef by the Catholicks in the tense more then past; you give your self occasion to think that he meant the main passage (non crederem) not of himself then, but as before a Manichee. And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer, because he speaks here of beleeuing the Acts of the Apostles, and beleeving it by a necessary consequence (because he hath already beleeved the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church) doth not overthrow my answer; because you say your self that this book of the Acts he did beleeve by consequence: by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to beleeve the other books; and therefore by consequence he did beleeve the book of the Acts, because the Catholick authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures. The speaking [Page 159] here in the present doth not derogate from my answer, because the beleeving by consequence, supposeth an act of beleeving antecedent.
Also Fourthly, note that here he said the Catholick authority doth commend, both which may be done without infallibility. For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary: but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof, and so may move dispositively to Faith.
Fifthly, Perpende it well, that it is said by St. Austin, that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority, and that the Catholick authority doth commend both; not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included. And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have, and also that his authority, were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church; Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church; if indeed you were such. And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract, namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church, in the respects of it, should be singularly appropriated to the Roman. But of this in your 27 number.
Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase, could he more clearly say, that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible, he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture. So you. First I deny your consequence; this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture. It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority, because they had led unto him. But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible; for they might purpose that which they thought [Page 160] to be true for errour: and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility. And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him; and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible.
As for that which you think an Argument against me, that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates. This is nothing effectual, for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us. Yea, it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it; because we are so eager to cover our imperfections; and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary. Secondly, what doth he inculcate that which you would have? But this is [...] as they say, this is under question, and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you, if he speak it assertively, until you fortifie your supposition.
But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find, and that is this. Had he said, that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it, by which he discovered it to be Canonical, then the Manichaeans might as easily have said, that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical. So you.
This is no way moving, much lesse cogent. For first, it proceeds from a Negative; which in the kind of it unless from Scripture (which is the adaequate rule) is of no validity. Because he did not say so, therefore he did not hold so? No connexion.
Secondly, by the same reason I may say, he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible, for then he would have told them so plainly, he would have made an end of the dispute, without any need of using Scripture.
Thirdly, they were not prepared for this Theological Argument, because they did not own the Church.
And now all things being duely considered, I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin. And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below, namely the fifth, against the Epistle of the Manichee, with the 14. De util. Cred. against the Manichees too; you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers, and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last: since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture, which is our main question; but he compares with the authoritie of those few, those turbulent, those new men, as he speaks, (who were not like to bring forth any thing, which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie) the authoritie of the Church, as to the beleeving of Christ; where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks; — Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi. Whereby you shall if you will, see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism; because here he said, jam credidi; so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee.
And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending, as upon infallible authority of the Church; because if he did, yet cannot you do it which is not to be done: and if it be to be done, because he did it, then it is not to be done, because he did it not. And I hope those strange stories, and those several points (which you speak to be in Scripture) may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture, then upon the authority of the Church; since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture, not as a Church. And therefore if you have no other infallible ground [Page 162] for prayers to Saints, and prayer for the dead (in your sense) and other like points, then you have proved he went upon, as towards the believing of Scripture, you have none. Nay, you have not so good authority for those and such like points, as he had for the belief of the Scripture: for besides the difference of the matter, he had Catholick authority for his belief, though the authority was not Infallible: but you have not Catholick authority for your points, though fallible. But I observe your wisdome. You would justifie your points here by Infallibility, which you think may be more likely, then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference.
Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared, untill the condition be proved. If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose, then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity, because you had followed him. As for you, you need not fear singularity. You provide against that in your opinion, or your Masters for you; for you must follow the Church, without examination of what they say. Their word must be taken: but yet your Church may be accused of singularity, because it doth not follow the Catholique. If then you will do prudently (as you speak) go with Saint Austin no further, then he would have you follow him, namely in the way of Scripture, which he understood well, and at the latter time of his life: but whether he understood it as much as any the Church had (which you say) may be yet under debate (with all respect to Saint Austin) since it appears not that he had any skill in Hebrew, and (if I remember well) confesseth that he learned Greek but late. So then, if in some cases, your own Men confesse that we must have recourse to the Original Languages, how could he understand them so well?
And now come we to your grand assumption, that what hath been said of the Catholick Church (that it is by Christ appointed to be the Judge of all Controversies, [Page 163] and that the definition of this Judge is Infallible, and consequently a sufficient ground of Faith) all the Doctrine must be applyed to the Roman Church, and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church.
And now then you are pleased at the latter end to discover your selfe, that you did intend at first the Roman Church, but dealt more cunningly then the rest of the Pontificians, who do include in the nature of the one and true Church, subjection to the Bishop of Rome. Methinks this plot of yours might be somewhat resembled by him who had that Phantasie, that whatsoever Ship came to Port was his, so now every Church must be yours or none; as if the Roman Sea were the Ocean: or, you would have all the Honours that might be conferred by God upon that Church, he would please to own signally, and to make his; conceiving that this Church can be none but your own. And thus would you have led me on with some ingenuity, to be liberal in my respects and devoirs to the Catholick Church, that so you might without contradiction sweep all for the Roman Catholick.
But prove that those priviledges, you speak of, belong to the Roman Church, and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church. You prove it thus:
First, This Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim to those priviledges, and so by her own Doctrine, she cannot be Judge or Infallible, nor any other Church but the Roman, upon the same reason, because they professe themselves by evident and Infallible Scriptures their own Fallibility, as you prove the consequence to be to the end of your Page of the 27. Number; and therefore the Roman Church is the true Church, unlesse Christ hath no true Chrch, nor hath had these many ages. This is your argument, which proceeds by way of a negative induction, not the Protestant Church, nor this other Church, nor that, nor any other Church doth claim the priviledge of being Infallible Judge, onely the Roman; therefore, otherwise Christ hath had no true Church these many Ages.
Sir, Which will you give us leave to do, to smile or weep, that men not to be contemned for their Learning and Reading should be abused, and should endevour to abuse others by such ratiosinations, which are made useful onely [...].
We and all other Churches do of their own accord yeild unto you that they are Fallible. We save you the labour of the eviction. True Churches they say they are, and say they are not Infallible; and they say also that you only do lay claim to this Infallibility: but what then? therefore you have Infallibility? what, because you only claim it? Suppose that the Roman Church doth lay claim to Utopia, or to the Terra incognita, no other Church doth, not the Protestant, not any other, therefore it is due to them. Yes, but where is this Utopia? where is this Terra incognita? what be the Priviledges and Dominions thereof they are yet to seek for them, who lay claim to them. First, then make it out that there is such an Infallibility to be had before you challenge it, and do not prove the beeing of it by your challenging it, lest your Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies: but prove solidly the beeing of it by the grounds thereof: and then secondly, prove a just claim; for suppose that others did not lay claim to it, what right can yet you have by a claim? Is this also given primo occupanti? If you have no other tenure for your Infallibility, you have none, and it doth bespeak fallibility to say the title is good.
If I might be so bold (and surely I may in the cause of the truth of God) it is more likely to fall out thus; no Church but the Roman doth pretend to Infalliblity, therefore is it highly presumptuous, and is onely in this not an Usurper, because there is no such thing as belonging to any Church. We have no such tradition, nor the Churches of God: and yet also is it an insolent Usurpation of that Prerogative, which belongs onely to God and Scripture.
This is enough to undo your argumentation and you: but whereas you say that all other Churches of other Religions do say indeed that they themselves are the onely true Churches; it is not true, they doe not speak of themselves exclusively, as you do. Particular true Churches, they may be under the truly Catholick Church, and therefore they can contesserate one with another, with respective acknowledgements; but you are they who exclude all from the condition of being true Churches, which will not reconcile themselves to you by absolute subjection.
And since you say that all other Churches but yours disclaim Infallibility, you see that we alone do not stand aloof from obedience to your Roman Tyranny. So you are not Catholicks in dominion neither.
Yet you would seem to have some reason for your discourse, that one Church must be Infallible, otherwise Christ hath not, nor hath had, any true Church these many ages. This is inconsequential, unlesse there be some Church Infallible, Christ hath no true Church. It is a false proposition, as we have answered you, from the first to the last, that a true Church is Infallible, and it is now all the question. Though it be not true in every point, yet may it be a true Church. Every error doth not destroy the beeing of the Church, and you have very great cause not to presse this, lest it be retorted against your Church, as it might be to be Even with you; that Church which holds it selfe Infallible, and yet hath erred, is Fallible, and therefore by your Doctrine no true Church; the Church of Rome holdeth it self Infallible, and yet hath erred, then this is no true Church. And might not the assumption here be proved by your own Doctrine? for if the Tradition of the Church be the Rule of Faith, then you have erred in rejecting the Millenary opinion, which was a tradition of the Church.
So then your designe you speak of in the 28. Number, [Page 166] of not expressing the Roman Church in your dispute, you see is destroyed: for what you say of the Catholick Church, is not sufficiently pleaded for the Roman, and also Infallibility is not yet asserted to the Catholick. And therefore your demonstration you talk of, is but a flourish, and your Argument you think unanswerable, is not to be answered, any more, because that strength which it had is taken away. And I have no more to say untill you have any more to say, upon this point or any you mean, in difference betwixt us.
But yet you have not done, but like a Parthian who fights flying; so you dispute still ending. You say you will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this, Saint Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith, That false Faith cannot have access to the Roman Church. And when you please to press this, I shall shew you what little ground you are like to get in that Epistle; since though he names the Roman Church as the principal Church, as the chair of Peter, yet he there defends his own jurisdiction against those who would ramble to Rome to have their cause heard and judged there. Neither will you get any credit by those whom he speaks of, and in those words you quote, there is an intimation, that the Romans then, when he did write, were not such as those were in the Apostles times, Apostolo praedicante; and I shall tell you why it was called the principal Church, for a principle of Unitie; so he, from whence the Sacerdotal Unitie began; and also by reflexion from the Imperial Seat.
And if you will object Saint Jerome's authoritie in his Comment upon the first to Timothy, that he calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome, the Rectour of the House of God, which you say Saint Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. I shall return you answer, that this is not very much; for other Bishops were called in ancient times Papae too, and that he calleth him the Rectour of the House of God, that is not much neither, since every Bishop is so; The [Page 167] Rectour of the Church in that place where he lives. And this will appear to be less considerable, if you will take notice that in his Comment upon the first Ep. to Tim. the third chapter upon these words, A Bishop must be irreprehensible; where he speaks of a Bishop in communi, he sayes, Aut Ecclesiae Princeps non erit; so a Bishop in general with him is a Prince of the Church, and also you know what opinion he had betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, Read to this purpose his Epistle to Evagrius. If you come upon me again with Saint Jerome to Damasus in an Epistle, you may tell me what Epistle, for he wrote more then one, and his Title in some is, as is set down plainly Hieronimus Damaso. Surely Popes then had not that state, or else Saint Jerom had little reverence towards him. And you may see also how the Pope writes to him to resolve questions: And is this any sign of the Popes Infallibilitie? Well, but you say in that Epistle you will tell me of, to Damasus, he saith, To your Holyness, that is, To the Chair of Peter I am joyned in Communion: Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built, he that gathereth not with thee, scattereth. So you.
And shall I give you answer to this now? then I may tell you that this doth but magnifie the honour of his own Commuion, and yet not much neither, if you will observe what he saith in his Comment upon Amos the 6. chapter, Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis, ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur, Tu es Petrus, &c. Then Peter is not in his Opinion the onely Rock, you see. Moreover, so the Fathers you say, in the Council of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said, Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo.
And what can you ever make of this that they did say so? No more then thus much, that the Successour of St. Peter spoke. Doth this signifie that all the Personal pripriviledges which Saint Peter had, Pope Leo had? then there needed but him to determin all the Controversies. Yea, according to Saint Jerom before, if he had had all [Page 168] those priviledges which Saint Peter had, yet the Church should not be built upon him onely; for the other Apostles were Rocks too. Yea, and is he Christs Successour also? If he be not, then that which you would fain arrogate to him, belongs onely to Christ to be Head of the Universal Church.
To cut short, you remit me to Statleton and Bellarmin, who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief causes. The places you say you will alledge, though for the present you refer me to them.
What do you mean Sir, to put me off to those adversaries, or in the interim to satisfie me until you have ranged them into another discourse? I need not send you to our men who have withstood those Champions foot to foot —Junctusque Viro Vir. Saint Cyprian in the place before makes an exception against this supreme Tribunal for Appeals, and the African Churches.
After this, you seem to threaten me with further Demonstrations of particulars material to your cause. Untill which time it becomes me in civilitie to wait, and not to take the word out of your mouth, or your work out of your hand. I shall let you rise that you may have more strength for the next assault. I could leave here, but that our late Feast may hint you to think of the contest betwixt the Roman and other Churches about the observavation of Easter. And were those Hereticks or Schismaticks that would not stand to the Roman determination herein?
And as for your earnest demand, to know but the name of one of the Pastours Doctors, or Preachers in those last thousand Ages (Years) which preceeded Luther; I may conceive my self obliged then to give you some account hereof, when you shall tell me whoever of all the Bishops of Rome, in a vast insolency took upon him the Empire of the whole Church, under the Title of Universal Bishop, before [Page 169] Boniface the Third took it from Phocas his Donation. Untill Gregorie's time inclusively there was no such Usurpation: and you know what Gregorie said of John of Constantinople for his pretending to it, that whosoever did, made himself the forerunner of Antichrist.
But if I would answer, the answer would be easie; and it is ready, you have it alreadie in a Testimonie out of Tertullian in his Prescriptions, it may be you took no notice of it then, nor did I urge it to this purpose by way of Application to our Church, thus, That which we are, the Scriptures were from the beginning, we are of them before it was otherwise, before they were corrupted by you▪ Then we are as ancient as may be for our Doctrine and Sacraments, they are found in the Records of Scripture. And if Campian says, All the Fathers were his and yours; we may say, the Apostles are ours. Nay, the Fathers are not yet proved to be yours in the main difference betwixt us; nor I think can you prove them to be yours without corruption of the Text, or of the sense by you in any other point of importance, betwixt us. Nay, how many of your Roman Communion have given Testimonie to us in Substance of Doctrine, besides [...]erus, whom you have abused (as I told you) therefore, to make him after death speak false to Truth and himself. Nay, we are, what the Roman Church was, before the Roman Church was what it should not be, and what it was not in the purest Primitiveness: and therefore your additional Doctrines (which, and your universal Jurisdiction pretended, have made the breach, and discontinued our Communion) we could not have from Rome then when it had them not. And therefore it is not proper for us to be Opponents; for we are upon the Negative. Doe you shew that a flourishing visibilitie is necessary to the Church, and how it is like to be in your Church in the time of Antichrist, according to your Doctrine, and how it held in the time of the Arrian persecution. Do you shew that you have had in your Communion [Page 170] all the Holy men and none other, and then you will do a miracle. And let us hear of it no more until it be done. As he said, Landari non potest nisi peractum. Go on with your design, and let it be a real defence of your cause, by a solid and substantial maintenance of the points you hold, and we deny, but doe not offer to deceive us with old shooes and clouted, and mouldie bread, and old raggs and and old bottles, as if you came from a far Countrie, that you might be of a League together, as the Gibeonites couzned the Israelites. If you do, we shall endevour to discover it. Therefore rather think of that of our Saviour, Saint Matt. 9.16. No man putteth a piece of new cloth to an old garment: for that which filleth up taketh from the Garment, and the rent, [...], is made worse.
And now methinks I should end; but for the conclusion, shewing (as you say) my Replie to your papers to be fully answered in your former discourse.
Sir, this is verie odd that you will not answer particucularly my premisses, and yet I must combate with your conclusion. And yet if I have answered your premisses, in the Lawes of Disputation, I have nothing to do with your conclusion. And therefore whatsoever part of your discourse you refer me to, in this your conclusion, for my answer to the first Replie, since it is punctually answered by me in the matter of it, needs not to be shewed by me to be insufficient for my answer. For besides that you leave me to find my own condemnation in your paper, where I can, which is a mightie labour and it may be impossible, (whereas you will urge a particular formal Judge to hear and determin,) besides this; you may understand, that that which is not true in it self (as I have shewed as well as you the contrarie) cannot answer me, for it cannot answer for it self, being false: and therefore the product of it, were it rightly applied in the form, would be null.
Yet have I a fancie, that since somewhat in it is not said before by you, and somewhat you do charge me with; if I [Page 171] should give no Replie thereunto, you would think that the cause were wanting, or I to it: I shall therefore where there is need briefly run it through.
First you say, that I said there was little reason for me to rejoyn, because in your paper you wave the Application of it to the Roman Church. You make your apologie that it was to no end, until I had granted that some Church was the ground of Faith. A man must first prove to a Jew, that the Messias is come, and then he must prove that Christ was this Messias. So you.
I Answer, That I think I gave you the true Reason of your not including the Roman Church in your prosecution of the Catholick Church, before. But in that you say, that first a man must prove the Messias to be come before that he proves Christ to be the Messias, you speak not congruouslie, for Christ and Messias are all one, in different Languages; you mean that Jesus is the Messias. For the Jewes acknowledged Jesus, but not Christ. But let that passe. According to your Doctours you could not abstract the Catholick Church from the Roman Church, as I have told you; since they include the Pope as Head, in the definition of the Catholick Church, and that which belongs to the nature of a thing you cannot abstract from it; for then you should make a falsitie in your abstraction, for then you should conceive the nature of it without that which is necessarie to the nature. And that which follows, as you say, by consequent from the Catholick to the Roman, is formerly denied.
Secondly, you say that I say that I might still have left you to answer your first paper with your second. And so I say still. You Replie that this is onely to stand to what I have said, as you also do; Let the Reader judge with indifferencie. And I say, let the Reader or the world judge with indifferencie which of us doth most stand to his supposition without reason, or who is most likely to doe so; I, or you, who are so captivated to and by your infallibilitie, [Page 172] which you must stand out in by it self, which is the Question: and if you offer to prove it by Scripture, you come upon our ground.
Thirdlie, you say I say you doe not conclude contradictorilie; and I say so still. You Replie, that you alwaies conclude the Churches authoritie to be a sufficient ground ground of Faith, and I say it is an insufficient ground.
Answer But you do not consider that your Arguments or Testimonies doe not conclude the Church a sufficient ground: and therefore whether you as a Disputant doe conclude contradictorilie, let the Reader judge.
Nextlie, you come to my Eight answers, as you divide my last paper. And in my first answer, you say, I spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith. So then I have made by your confession my word good that I would give you a proof by Testimonies, that the Scripture is a sufficient ground of Faith, which I have done with Reasons also thereupon. But you triumph, this this it is not to conclude contradictorilie. And why so? You say, that I should have concluded that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith; which 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 authoritie to be the Word of God; and also when we evidentlie know that such and such is the undoubted sense of Scripture. Thus you.
But first, are there two sufficient grounds of Faith or not, as to the same Objects? 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 [Page 173] 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? [Page 174] 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 [Page 175] 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, [Page 177] 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 Mini [...]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; [Page 178] 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 [Page 179] that there are but four, by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse, about the foure beasts, which doe represent, as he interprets their meaning, the four Evangelists.
You go on, and say, God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith. Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church, because she proposeth it: so that the formal Object of things to be believed, was as proposed by the Church, under that consideration. But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture, sometimes by the Church, as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written. So you. Well then, now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church, as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture, which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word. So then, we may believe him immediately by Scripture: but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture, wants conviction.
Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows, that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written, he revealed himself by the Church. This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine, because the Scripture in the substance of it, was before it was written: but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us, as the word before it was written was unto them. And the Reason may be taken from Gods wise Dispensations to his Church, then when there was no Word written, he would provide, that that whereby the Church should be ruled, should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved: but now, when there is a Word written, which is a most sufficient ground of Faith, (as you confesse) there is no such cause of any word beside it. If the Scripture be a Rule of faith, as you do liberally grant, then this is now a rule [Page 180] not onely inclusively, but exclusively: for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled; and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives; and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners. For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse, but also more. It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves, as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it. But then again, your former reasoning is inconcludent; because God revealed himself to his Church severally, before he revealed himself by his Church. And therefore this was not the way universally holding, namely by the Church, even before the Scripture was written. And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written. Shew the like inspirations to the Church, as the Prophets had, by some infallible way, and then we shall say, that thus saith the Lord absolutely, undisputedly, without possibilitie of contradiction, by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God, to be believed equally to Scripture; and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture, as the Nicene, you mean, was not believed or to be believed without; for it did determine by it, and by that Text I named, [I and my Father are one;] which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named. And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours (as you imagine) had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had, then ye might say, Peter spake by the mouth of Leo, as infallibly as God spake by his. Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion, as Athanasius had; for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils, as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle: if what is said by the Church must be true, then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion. Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible [Page 181] definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel; then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true. What? because he cannot erre? No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from, the 8. chapter, to the 15. who have been, as he said accused of errour; and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose, can possibly justifie.
Pope Zephyrine, a Montanist, then he erred; if not a Montanist, then Tertullian is not to be believed. Liberius as before an Arrian; so Athanasius, so Jerome, so Damasus of him; and Damasus could not erre as you hold, yet an Arrian is surely in errour? is he not? Honorius was erroneous too; and he spoken of in a former paper, he a Monothelite, as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold; and he proves it by Synods, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, and he proves it by Epistles of Popes; if all there be deceived, how shall we believe authoritie of man? As for Gregory the Third, Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say, Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse, quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus. So he. Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility. How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions, when he was ignorant in the Gospel, and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife, if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt? And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter, hath this passage, Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit. Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum. Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis, qui Historias legerit non dubitat; and a little after, Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent, qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent. And how then shall we by your Head of the Church, or any other [Page 182] severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly? But many necessary places of Scripture, do not, (as you imagin) need a Judge, or not infallible.
All things also necessary to be believed, are set down in Scripture, and the contrary you have not shewed, and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former; or tradition for the latter, as I have shewed. Neverthelesse, you proceed thus; The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church, you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith. So you.
Answer. As you suppose much for your advantage, without colour of reason; so you confound much without distinction. First, the term Revelation hath two respects, one to the Agent, and so it refers to the act and manner thereof; another to the matter of that which is revealed, that is the object. The Revelation of God taking it passively, for the object, the matter which is revealed, comes to us by the Church, because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church: But taking Revelation of God actively, with respect to the manner, to bear your sense, that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church, either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture; so it doth not come by the Church; and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith, which must rely upon infallible veritie, as Aquinas speaks in his first part, first question, eight answer, and therefore as before, doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, which wrote the Canonical books; and not then upon the Church, who was bound to receive these Books, and to communicate them. So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only, or a motive of this faith; an instrument by its office, and a motive by its authority. [Page 183] And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture; So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible, which you would have the Church to be. Secondly, you suppose that which is not to be supposed, that by my words, since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church, I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith: and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so. Surely you here do commit Crimen falsi, for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession. I have often upon your occasion, said the contrary, that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith. And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion, or of Scripture, in all your Church, is more easie to be found then said. And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world, the greatest part of it is but opinion, which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture. And as for us; we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement; and Scripture to settle our faith. And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine, as he said, then your Church now.
And now at the end of all, you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression, namely, Excesse of Faith.
But you say, my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech. For there is still a difference in more believing Objects, and believing more Objects. But granting that it may be improperly spoken, yet even in that sense it is not truely said, because there can be no Excesse of Faith, in believing that which God hath said.
So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva, & fides Objectiva; fides Qua, & fides Quae; [Page 184] there may be an Excesse of Faith, in the Object, if we beleive more then God hath said; supposing we can believe what God hath not said; although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject; for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed. But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse, but because of the Application of it to you; as it now appears; and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie; and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe, you have this Warrant, Thus saith the Lord. But since, this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last, nor shall have it surely by begging, you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith: and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie; for which you have not, Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it? by Tradition? And how do you prove Tradition, by the infallibility of the Church? Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference. If you have a desire to rest your judgement, and your soul in certain infallibilitie, by your own word; then center in Scripture, from which all Lines of Truth are drawn, and dismisse Tradition (as your men state it) for which this infallibilitie was devised; and yet cannot be maintained; for it cannot maintain it self.
You close with a passage of Saint Austin. If so the words, you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ, not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie. I may love the Church without infallibility, because though I doe not love Errour, yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour. And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper. Excuse [Page 185] me that it was so long ere it came (and yet not much above the space of yours) and also so long now it is come.
Onely let me leave you with a Father or two, in whose company you are delighted; Tertullian in his Prescript, cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ, nor further Inquisition after the Gospell. When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond. For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe. Again against Hermog. cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture. And a little after, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina; If it be not written, let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away.
And Saint Austin, in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt: Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture, are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living; to wit, Hope and Charitie.
For the excellent modification of Scripture, in the 6. chapter, Magnifice igitur & salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit, ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret, obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret. Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur, quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur. And the same in the 7. chapter, for the second Degree or step to Wisedome, He saith, Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate, neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae, sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit; sive non intellectae, quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus: sed cogitare potius & credere id esse melius & verius quod ibi scriptum est, etiamsi lateat, quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus.
And again, Saint Austin contra Literas, Petit. Lib. 3. [Page 186] cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re, quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam nos, nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit, Licet si nos, sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus & Evangelicis accepistis, Anathema sit.
Consider what is said, and the Lord give you understanding in all things.
To the Reader. How in these times in which there be so many Religions, the true Religion may certainly be found out.
1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes. This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely. And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer, the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent. That this may be done more clearly, I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer. And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title; Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise, you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it.
2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it. My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface. Again, that Treatise did shew five things.
First, it did shew the necessity of a Judge, to whom all are bound to submit.
Secondly, That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide [Page 188] all necessary Controversies without a living Judge (to the 17. Numb.)
Thirdly, that this Judge could be no other then the true Church (to the 21. Numb)
Fourthly, that the true Church is infallible in her judging points of Faith, (to the 17. Numb.)
Fifthly, That this true Church which is our infallible Judge, is the Roman Church, (to 29 and last Numb.)
Lastly, followed the Conclusion. My answer therefore must have five more chapters to shew the Reply made against that Treatise to be unsatisfactory in every particular argument opposed against me in all these five points.
3. There might have been added another chapter to examine what my adversary saith concerning the Conclusion of my Treatise. But as he himself (Page 112.) observeth very well, he might have spared his Reply against my Conclusion, because it containeth no new thing appertaining to the main Controversie, but it was made onely to shew that in the handling of the main Controversie, I had answered all his paper, which I did there run over in order. And therefore in his answers to all I had said about the main Controversie, he had given up his answers to all that which is onely run over again in the conclusion. Neither know I any reason that I gave him to fansie (as he saith he doth) that I should either think a good cause wanting to him, or him wanting to a good cause, unlesse he had answered my Conclusion apart, though something were in it not said before by me and some few things in which I charge him. But Sir, that which I stand upon is the main question and the proof or disproof of it. Nor will I judge so hardly of you as to think you will conceive either my cause worse, or me a worse defender of it, because I tire not my self and my Reader with our personal debates, when they concern not the main question, in which both of us have been so large. And so as you thought you might have ended when you came to that [Page 189] conclusion, so I think I may well end when I have answered those hundred Pages, and more, which I met with before I come thither, though there still remained something which concerned our private debates. For if that which hath been said before doth not satisfie, no great satisfaction will be added by going on a little further in the same strain in matters lesse to the matter.
The first CHAPTER. The Answer to my Preface Confuted.
1. YOur first words intimate that you fear least your silence should make me seem to my self or others to have got the Victory. Sir, your Reply is most welcome in this respect that it doth more help me then your silence could, not to seem to have got, but really to get that Victory which I desire not to my selfe, but to truth. For the examination of your Reply will serve for a Touch-stone to my Arguments. I will follow you as you desire step after step, and [...].
2. To shew the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken, I said that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people, with so unlimited a Licence, to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion, as a thing most apt to cause a numberlesse number of Sects and Heresies. A priori this is proved thus. You permit any Artificer, who can read, to take the Bible into his hand, and to take it for his sole, and onely Iudge of all necessary Controversies. And though all the force and efficacy of the words of Scripture consist in the true sence and sincere Interpretation [Page 190] of it, yet when all comes to all you leave this Interpretation to be made by every Reader, though never so unskilful with so great Latitude, that though a General Council of the greatest Doctors which could be gathered together, should have defined such and such a point for undoubted true Doctrine, and to be held so according to Scripture, yet you permit any Cobler to make a Review of this Decree, and if he hearing all that can be said on the one side and on the other, judgeth at last that the whole Councel hath erred in interpreting Scripture, you leave him free to hold himself so strongly to his own interpretation, as if it were the true sence of Gods Word; neither will you hear of any Obligation which he hath interiorly to submit his judgement (which is the seat of true faith or errour) to any other Iudge upon earth. For surely if he be left by your Principles so free in the choice of his interpretation of Scripture, as not to be obliged to submit interiorly to a whole General Council, he hath far greater freedom in not being obliged to submit to any other private Doctours. Is not this to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding Gods Word, and falling into Heresie?
Secondly, the same is proved a posteriori in those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading, but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow (I still mean when he shall have heard or seen what can be alledged on all sides) there and onely there, Sects have multiplied, and do multiply beyond measure.
3. Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of Heresies, and bad life which followeth Heresie. First it is so far from being contrary to that Text, You erre not, knowing the Scripture, that it is most agreeable to it. For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of Scripture, is to permit such, and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures, as are most [Page 191] fit to erre in the interpretation of them especially being licensed to cross all Antiquity, and all the Authority of the Church if these stand in their way. And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding, The knowledge of Scripture. If the works of these famous Physitions Galen and Hipocrates, were thrust into all Trades-mens hands, and every one of them were licensed to interpret, as they sincerely thought best, would you call this The knowledge of Physick, especially if every one might be permitted to hold his interpretation against a General Assembly of most learned Physitians? Secondly, you in vain object that of Saint Paul, That the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. Far was it from the intention of Saint Paul, to speak of the Scriptures interpreted by every giddy fansie; for thus they may be the occasion of our damnation. Saint Paul said they were able to make Timothie wise to salvation, because he was a man who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of (to wit, by the Oral tradition of the Doctours of the Church) A man knowing of whom he had learned these things, and these traditions. Let such men read Scriptures, and let them with such interpretations understand them, and they will make them wise to salvation, and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church, and never to contradict that. Thirdly, you say, I confesse that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered: Yes, but I also say, that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture. And Saint Peter saith, That many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of Saint Paul. So that misinterpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition. Fourthly you object Heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibity. If I should grant all, what prove you from hence, but that there be other wayes to Heresie, and bad life, besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit; [Page 192] So there be other wayes to Hell besides Drunkennesse, but what doth this hinder drunkennesse from being the high way to Hell. Again, had not David, who was a murderer and adulterer; had not Salomon, who was an Idolater, the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing several parts of the Holy Scripture? But to prevent this, and all that else where you doe, or can say against the Pope, I (in my 21. Number) desired you, and all to take notice of that which here you quite forget. I said, I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more, then to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre, How then doth the belief or faith of our Church (I speak not of private mens private opinions) invest infallibility in a person heretical or lewd? Those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope can not erre in defining out of a general Council, have other Answers to your Objection. But that which you say is nothing against our faith, which no man (though never so little a Frenchman) will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining, out of a general Council. So much for this.
Whereas I said that we cannot have, as things stand, any other assurance to ground our faith upon then the Church, you tell me, I suppose the question. Sir, I did not suppose, but onely propose, what presently I meant to prove. And where as you say, that I do not well consider what I say, when I say, that as things stand we have no other assurance. I answer, That though God might have ordained otherwise, yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points, speaking of the last ground on which we must stand, not a Humane, but a Divine ground, The pillar and ground of Truth; and it is the first, because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as I shall shew, Numb. 20. chapter, 3. Neither doe we first believe the Church for the Scripture as I shall shew, chapter 3. Numb. 31.32. though against those who have first admitted [Page 193] the Scriptures for Gods Word, we do prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church. That I have said nothing against the practice of our Church, appeareth by what I said just now, shewing how the people deprave the hard places of Scripture to their own perdition.
5. You charge me with abating from my first Proposition in which I said, Divine Faith in all things was caused by the proposal of the Church, because now I say that when by the infallible authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the Word of God, we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture. Good Sir, Do you not see, that if I be asked why I believe (in this case) such a thing, my first answer will be because God hath said it in the Scripture? but if I be pressed further; and why do you believe the Scripture to be Gods undoubted Word? my last answer must be for the infallible authoritie of the Church by which God teacheth this Verity. Surely the main question that serveth for the knowledge of the ground work of all our faith, is to examin upon what authoritie at last all our faith doth rely, when all comes to all. Take then the belief of what particular points you please, and examine upon what authority it cometh at last to rely, and you shall ever find it to be the authoritie of God revealing by the Church.
6. Now whether my adversary be indeed, as he saith, one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England, or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no Demonstration; Let the indifferent Reader, after due pondering the force of all Arguments determin. Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde; The Scripture is infallible, but the Church is not, therefore I must take for the ground of my Faith the Scripture. For first, The Scripture cannot be proved to be Gods Word without the Church be infallible, as I shall shew, chap. 3. Numb. 20. Hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infallibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie [Page 194] Article of our faith, That all the Scripture is the Word of God, and therefore though upon her authority I believe Scripture to be most infallible, yet because I ground this belief on her authoritie, her authoritie is the last ground of Faith.
7. And whereas in your next Number, you promise such souls as have forsaken an infallible Church, a happy eternitie upon this ground, that those things which are necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture, I pray God their souls come not to be required at your hands. For this ground is most groundless in two respects. First, because no soul can have infallible assurance of the Scriptures being the true Word of God, if the Church be not infallible, and you refusing to stand on this ground make the last ground of all your faith to be I know not what kind of Light, Visible to certain eyes, such as yours are, discovering unto them infallibly, that such and such books be the infallible Word of God. The vanity of which Opinion I shall shew chap. 1. Numb. 20.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. Secondly, It is most manifestly false, That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, as I shew chapter 3.
8. In your next Paragraph, I find nothing which I have not here answered, onely you still force me to say, I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more then to believe, that the Pope defining with a lawfull Council cannot erre. What proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the authoritie of the Church. VVhen the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent.
9. As for your complaint that your paper is not fully answered; I suppose that if any thing of importance was left unanswered you will tell me of it here, that I may here answer it. Concerning my manner in answering of you, I must tell you that St. Thomas, and the chief School Divines, for clarity and brevity, use to proceed thus. Having first proposed the question they put down the reasons [Page 195] which seem to make against the truth. This was done to my hand in your first paper. Then they set down the Truth and the Reasons of it, and this Saint Thomas in his Quaestionibus fasiùs disputatis doth sometimes very largely; (and this I did to your hand in my last paper.) Lastly, they solve the former Objections against truth, by reference to such Reasons as they (in their Proofs) did shew the truth to be grounded upon. And this in my conclusion I shewed my self to have performed; or, if any little thing were wanting I did supply it; Wherefore, though I had not your consent to proceed thus with your paper, yet I content my self with having the consent of the best Schoolmen. My intention in rejoyning by a Treatise was to have this most important matter distinctly, orderly, and fully put down. And by having done so I find this great commoditie, that your answer becomes more Methodical, and my Reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous. And the Reader seeth still how orderly the combat is.
The Second CHAPTER. The necessitie of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all are bound to submit.
1. IN the beginning of your Answer,Of my first Number. to what I said concerning this point, you go about to perswade us, that we Recusants (who upon this account are liable to loose two parts of our Estates, and what else you are, or shall be pleased to take from us, be it goods, liberty or life) that we I say are most likely to take up our Religion by prejudice. Doubtless you must think us first to be very noble contemners [Page 196] of the world, whose greatest commodities do not hinder us, from looking upon even with prejudice, a Religion so manifestly prejudicial to us; and so your own Tertullians saying fitly checks you, for being one who cannot see so manifest Verities as be in our Religion, you perswade your self to see certain Falsities, which so manifestly be not in it, let us come to the matter.
Of my second Number.2. God having made man to a supernatural end to be attained by supernatural means, (among which the first is true faith) it is clear that he must according to his merciful Providence, provide us some way to this faith, so easie, that all (if they pleased) might be brought to the knowledge of it. And because the far greater part of men were ignorant, it beseemed his goodnesse (who is the Lover of Souls) to provide us such a way as these ignorant men should not be able (unless by wilfully carelesness) to erre by it, according to that of the Prophet Esay 35. promising at the coming of the Messias, A Path and a way which shall be so direct to us that fools cannot erre by it. To elude this Text; You say, sure may we be that the Letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their Redemption from Captivity. I answer, if this be sure, then sure it is, That God directeth the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not erre by it. And if he did this to the Jewish Church, there can be no good reason why he should be less careful to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ. Whence you see I had no reason to have feared this Interpretation. Yet I think it is sure that this is not the true interpretation, for when did the blind see, deaf hear, when did then God himself come and save us? And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way, as he said, I am the Truth and the Way, this self same Saviour said, I (who am this way) am with you untill the consummation of the world, to wit, directing my Church the right way to salvation, of which direction the Church hath no lesse need now, then then. And as we could not securely have put a limitation [Page 197] to these words of Joel, if Saint Peter had not secured us of the true sense, so cannot you here limit these words, not having the like warrant for it. And as for the first part of Miracles, it is manifest by our Saviour his own words, Those who believed in him should do greater then he had done. If then this Text was Verified after our Saviours time, you cannot say it is onely spoke of his time, and that he did take away a way so necessary for us, His guifts being without Repentance. And it is strange that you thinking this guift Litterally conferred to the Jewish Church, should with the same breath plead so hard that it is a guift, which should not in full dimension be alwayes extended to the Church. I cannot believe that you trust your other argument. If this way be promised to the Church, Ergo the Church is not this way. Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy, Ergo the Kingdome of France (say you) is not this Monarchy. The true consequence is, Ergo, The Kingdome of France is this Monarchie. The Church is this way which God promised it should be. And it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way, and is with his Church ruling it until the continuation of the world. And so Christ is Regula regulans, and the Church Regula regulata. But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the VVord of God, and you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedidience. And still I must mind you that I speak of the Universal Church represented in a General Council confirmed by the Supreme Pastor. This Church guiding by her infallible doctrine is this way, the Church Diffusive (guided now by this Doctrine) was promised this Direct way: such a way we were promised, a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it. The Scripture as some may conceive (for you dare not defend it) is not this way, for we see with our eyes, not onely fools, but also most learned men to erre grosly, and to follow most contradictory opinions, whilest they professe from their hearts to follow Scripture as neer as they can; the Scripture therefore is not this way, [Page 198] yet such a way we must find to make Gods promise good. Nothing then with any probabilitie can be said to be this way, but the Visible Church of Christ. For the Church Invisible as such, is no way according to your Confession. The visible Church then is this Judge; by submission to her judgement we in all things are secured.
Of my third Number.3. 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 infallibility to their Judge as you your selves do, affirming Gods written Word to have plainly set down all things necessary to salvation, so that no necessary controversie can spring up but this Judge as you say doth decide it, which how false it is I shall fully shew chap. 3. All other 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 [Page 199] 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 [Page 200] 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 youChap. 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 [Page 201] 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 by those places of Scripture; which places as they could not before the meeting of the Councils, so they cannot after the meeting of the Council fully define, determine, and decide these controversies. Now surely it is clear by these Acts of the first four Councils (which Councils your English Church holds for lawful) that the Fathers of these Councils never so much as doubted, but that they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define, and finally to determine those controversies still arising. And they had grievously wronged the world by Excommunicating all such as should gain-say what they had defined and determined, if Errour and Falsity, and Contradiction to Scripture [Page 202] could have been found in their Definitions and Determinations. What you touch concerning the Bereans, I answer fully, chap. 3. Numb. 14.
6. Whereas you adde fourthly, That the decisions of the Church, though unprovided of infallibilitie, do yet oblige unto peace, though their judgement cannot claim an undisputed assent, yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference; you teach by words, what the deeds of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid. Secondly, seeing that a general Council (as you in your first paper confess) is the highest Court on Earth, to hear and determine Controversies, if her determinations may be erronious, and these erronious determinations be to be accepted peaceably, reverently, and without disturbance; in what a pittiful case should Gods whole Church be, which having no higher Court, from which relief might be hoped, is bound to conform and subscribe to erroneous definitions; and all preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouth against these errours. Did it beseem the wisedome of Christ to appoint such a Government in his Church, which should leave open so wide a gap to errors, which being by command from the highest authoritie on earth, preached by so many, and not so much as contradicted by one, must needs increase to a wonderful height. Would any wise Law-makers proceed thus, if they could help it as well as Christ could, by continuing in his Church that infallibility which you will confesse it had those two thousand years before Scripture was written, and which this Church of Christ had before all the whole Canon of the New Testament was finished, which was for the first fourty years of the Church.
7. Vain is your fear that we should become Hypocrites in differing by one outward Act from our inward act of belief, for any wise man may inwardly perswade himself, although I by my force of wit, cannot see how such a point defined by a whole general Council should be true; [Page 203] yet if I have wit, I cannot but perswade my self even according to humane wisedome, that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth then my private judgement; and therefore rather to be interiorly imbraced. Again, I may discourse thus. All the places alleadgeable against the Definitions of Councils, or of Scriptures, be places clear or not clear; if not clear, then clearly I am imprudent and impudent to oppose, in a point not clear, my private judgement of discretion against the publick judgement of all Christendome, far more likely in a point not clear to hit upon the truth then I am. Now if these places alledgable against the Definitions of Councils be clear and evident, it is an evident and clear folly in me, to think that so wise an Assembly should have so universal a blindnesse, as that none of them should be able to discover that which is clear and evident even in my short sight: See chap. 4. Numb. 51. Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew, chapter 4 Numb. 28.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. And this Principle will beat down to the ground all Opposition which an humble soul can make, who will captivate her understanding in this case unto the obedience of faith as the Apostle speaketh.
8. And when you ask me, wherein you oppose general Councils? I answer, First that you oppose them even in that most fundamental ground, upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to set as Judges, with full Commission to determine securely all controversies, obliging all Christians to conform to their Definitions by such Censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven. Others will tell you divers other Oppositions you have with Councils, and even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions. But when you come to speak your mind more largely, you do your uttermost endeavours [Page 204] to make the world think that they have not sufficient assurance that any Council was as yet a Lawful General Council. I need no further proof of these your endeavours then all those manifold Objections which you put, and I answer in my 4. chapter Numb. 20.21.
9. And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposite to the true Catholike Church? I answer, Christ had in all ages since his time, a true Catholik Church, and consequently he had such a Church upon earth when your Reformation (as you call it) began. But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many, and very important points of doctrine, not onely the Roman, but all other Churches upon earth: Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholike Church in many, and very important points. And in plain English I tell you, this argument (which is in lawful form) is unanswerable. And when you say, that when you differ without opposition you keep the peace of the Church without question. I answer, That your Reformers did apparently in many and most important points differ from all Churches Christ had then upon the Earth, in opinion of publick Doctrine; censuring such and such Points as they all held, to be Erronious, Superstitious, opposite to the Word of God; and in this opposition you continue still, though in this whole age you have not been able to name one age in this last thousand years, in which Christ had a truly Catholike Church upon Earth, agreeing with you in those many and most important points in which your Reformers taxed us to have opposed the Scriptures. And as for exterior division you cannot name the Church upon earth from which you did not divide your selves at your Reformation. And I challenge you to tell me if you can, to what Church on Earth then visible you did joyn your selves, or who acknowledged you to be of their communion?
10. To prove yet further that we are not bound to submit our judgements to the Church, you use (as you say) [Page 205] my own argument, That we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act. But Sir, I never said any such thing, for how know we whether the Scripture Writers, or the Apostles themselves did know (without which knowledge they could not judge) of the interior Acts of all men, from their time to the end of the world? and yet all these men, upon due Proposition of their Doctrine, are obliged to submit their interior acts to their Doctrine. But I said that which you had rather a mind to mistake, then answer. For I said, That Christ should have left a very miserable Church, and should have gathered a most heart-dis-united sort of people, if after the reading of Scriptures (after which they wrangle so fiercely) He had left them no other Judge but their own private judgements subject to such varietie in understanding the Scriptures; what Law-maker (said I) was ever so inconsiderate as to leave only a Book of Lawes to his Common-wealth without any living Judge, to whom all were to submit; Then I added, True it is, that to submit exteriorly to Temporal Judges sufficeth, they being able onely to judge of the exterior man. Did I say this of general Councils? No, did I not, as it were to prevent your Objection, expresly adde, But God (in whose name the Church teacheth, and commandeth all which she teacheth and commandeth) searcheth the heart and the reynes and looketh upon the minde (which is the seat of true or false belief;) This God, I say, chiefly exacteth that those of his Church be of one faith interiorly, or else they be not of one faith; for faith essentially consisteth in the interior judgement. He hath all reason to exact that interiorly they be all of one faith. For he could not seriously have desired their salvation, without he required of them (by way of most rigorous obligation) to do that which is so wholy necessary to salvation, that without it no man is saved. For without true faith it is impossible to please God. This and much more to this effect, I presse there hotly, and yet I am not so much as answered coldly.
[Page 206]11. But you skip to my admiration at your doctrine which indeed giveth a very admirable licence to any Cobler to peruse the Decrees of general Councils, and to reject them too, if in his review of them he doth not find them Resolved into the infallible text of clear Scripture. Of which Doctrine I have already spoken fully (Num. 4.) And I think I had reason to say that the wisest man in the world is then most likely to erre, when, in his interiour judgement he goeth quite contrary to all Christendome. Of this I have given a very clear Reason here in my 7. Number, which will stop your mouth from calling every where, to have me prove the Churches infallibility until you come to my 4 chapter; or if it doth not, I must desire you in this place to turn unto it. And in the very next chapter I shall shew, that (though the Scripture be most infallible) yet it is not sufficient by it self alone unlesse you take it as it sends us to the Church) to decide all controversies. As for Saint Athanasius, did ever he oppose his judgement against the Definition of a lawful general Council? Nay, did it not appear by the Council of Nice, standing for his Doctrine, that he might well know the true Church lawfully assembled under the lawful Pastor confirming their Acts would teach as he taught. And because he knew this authority (relying on the assistance of the Holy Ghost) to be more then humane, he might well oppose a greater human authority.
By the way it is strange you should carp at us for calling our selves Roman Catholiks, as if say you, no others were Catholikes, whereas to avoid this very strife impertinent now to our purpose, I used that very name by which no others are excluded. And in this impertinent strife you say many things of which you prove not one.
12. I passe to that which is pertinent to the purpose, that it is a very desperate consequence flowing from the premisses of your Doctrine, permitting any private person so to peruse the Definitions of Councils, that he might [Page 207] freely reject them in his private judgement (which is the seat of all Faith) if he judged them not to be resolved into the infallible authority of Scripture, upon this ground, that we have nothing infallible but the Texts of Scripture, For these Texts being not able to decide all necessary controversies (I still adde unlesse you take them as they send us to the Church by themselves, as I shall fully shew in the next Chapter, it is clear that we shall remain disputing without end, or possibility of end, unless God hath given an infallible assistance to the Church; wherefore not to grant such an absurdity, we are necessitated to expound those Scriptures, promising that Christ will be with his Church unto the end of the world, That he will send them the Spirit of Truth to abide with them to teach them all Truth, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. That we must hear her under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens, That she is the Pillar and ground of Truth, and diverse others of which I speak, chapter 4. to be extended to an infallible assistance, for an assistance joyned with fallibilitie will still leave us jarring, as appears by our own Doctrine.
13. Being loath to stand too long to such a consequence, you make a long impertinent discourse about the perusal of the collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers, of all Ages, every where. Good Sir, tell me what connexion hath the perusal of every judgement, of every Father, of every Age, every where, with that Obligation which I put of following these Cannons of Councils which make to the decisions of those most known controversies about which we contend? Is the judgement of every Father of every Age, the judgement of a general Council? Why then do you run your self out of breath in inpugning that which is nothing to our purpose, and which I never spake of, rather then in holding close to the matter. But since you first bring the authority of Councils to a little more then nothing, and here again [Page 208] the authority of the Fathers, to a little lesse then nothing, in order to the ending of controversies; this your violence against any provocation, to Antiquity, and consent of Fathers, Will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter then at the beginning appeared possible. For it is evident out of your own words that it is to no end to deal with you out of Fathers, and I am resolved to deal with no body but to some end. I will therefore humour you in this, and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the Opinion of Fathers. But do not think that I do this, as if that what you here said against the authority of Fathers, found any credit with me, or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered. For you your self cannot be ignorant that we alledge plenty of such Holy Fathers against you, as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church. And we find sufficient of their works which have not perished, never taxed by any (but confessed Hereticks) to be erroneous in these points in which they hold with us, whereas their small errours used presently to be discovered, and cried down. We find also sufficient plenty of such works as never were suspected to be bastard pieces, or to have been corrupted; And it would make a learned man amazed to ask, as you do, How few of them have touched upon our differences? Are you ignorant that our learned Coccius hath filled a great, and a very great double [...]ome onely with the words of Holy Fathers opposite to your Doctrine in those points in which we differ. Gualterus did single out twelve points (in which our chief differences do consist.) And he sheweth (in his Chronicle at the end of every age from Christs time to this,) sufficient plenty of Holy Fathers, to Demonstrate, what the prime Pastors of the Church (followed by the people,) did believe in every one of those Ages, concerning these very prime points, in which we differ from you. The Author of the Progeny of Catholikes and Protestants, handling a part all [Page 209] our main differences, doth in all these points, give you the very words, of your own chief Doctors, clearly acknowledging a great number of Holy Fathers, directly opposite unto them in each one of those points. Do but please to look at the end of this Author upon his Table of Books and Chapters, and you may find that which I have said verified, in what point or points you please. Groundless then is the whole Discourse against arguing out of Holy Fathers. And indeed your Doctors would fain dispute out of Scriptures onely, because they find it to be true that the Scriptures alone cannot decide many Controversies, but by some Interpretation or other they think themselves able to elude the force of arguments drawn from Scriptures onely: the sayings which are not in Scripture, are in no case receivable by them, whereas indeed, there is no good got by disputing of Texts of Scriptures, but either to make men sick or mad, as our adversaries may daily see by their fruitless Scripture combates with the Anabaptists, the Sabatharians, and other upstart Sectaries. But the Church of God is the Kings high way, by which a man is sure to travail to truth. There ought therefore to be no appealing to Scriptures, nor disputing out of them only, since by that means, either neither side will be victorious, or it is a hazard whether. These things you might have learned from the ancient Fathers if you had regarded their Doctrine, yet since their authority hath so low a place in your esteem in order to finding out the truth, to humor you, I will lay aside all that might be said out of the Fathers.
I cut then off (by your own consent) all you say concerning S. Cyprian, and the Crisis of S. Austin concerning S. Cyprian; yet have I a great mind to tell you that S. Austin expressed exceeding well that Humility and Charity be those two vertues which made S. Cyprian (and ought to make us) submit to general Councils, as a prime part of our bounded duty; humility, wheresoever it is found is the Actus imperans of a most submissive Obedience to the Orders of those, [Page 210] whom under pain of damnation we are to obey. Because the Devils had not this Humility in submitting themselves to God, and the obedience due to him, their Rebellion is ascribed to pride, which for the same reason is styled, The Mother of Heresie. Now as Humility bringeth with her this necessary submission in the interior, so Charity is the Vertue which will be sure to see that peace and Unity be kept exteriorly in the Church. Grant this submission to all Councils and we have done.
Of my fourth and fifth Number.15. God on his part hath given us an excellent means to be surely guided in our interior (in which faith consists) by following the Church the Kings high way surely leading to Truth; take away this means (recommended so often for this end by Scripture) and you shall see how pittifully we are left unprovided in order to exterior Unity. But you presse to have my discourse to this effect drawn into a syllogism, which you do for me. But I hope to do it yet more clearly for my self in this manner. Under pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this; that every one interiorly giveth an infallible assent to all such points as are necessary to be believed for salvation. But all can never be brought to agree in giving interiourly this infallible Assent to all such points, without they submit their Assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility: Therefore all can never be brought to agree in that, in which they are bound to agree under pain of damnation, without they all submit their interior assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility. The first Proposition is clear; because all are obliged to please God, and to have that faith, without which it is impossible to please God. The second Proposition is proved thus. An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority, and no other infallible authority sufficient to breed this agreement in their interior assent to all points necessary, can be assigned but the authority of the Church. The Authority of the Scripture, though infallible [Page 211] doth not give us clear Texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation, as I shall shew in the next chapter. And we see with our eyes those who submit to this authority of Scripture as infallible, to disagree mainly in these very points; for one thinketh in his conscience these Scriptures to be understood one way, another thinketh in his conscience they are to be understood one other way, & this other is licensed by you to differ from the former, for you licence such a man to differ even from the greatest authority upon Earth, to wit, a general Council, much more easie must you be to license him to differ from an other private man: and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other. What possible means is here of Union in the interior man in which faith onely doth consist. What you adde of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely, is in this sence true, that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church, not that Scripture alone by her self endeth all our controversies as partly hath been proved, but shall now more copiously be performed in my next chapter, in which you shall find all that you adde in this place presently answered, after I have fully set down the state of the question.
The third CHAPTER. That seeing Scripture alone doth not decide all things necessary to salvation, there must be a living Judge.
1. YOu deliver your Opinion in your answer to my third Number page 12. As towards controversies we say that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the salvation of man in regard of means of Knowledge without an infallible [Page 212] Judge on Earth, because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture. And in another place you say, what is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary. Of this your opinion no proof was given by you untill you come unto this present place. Here then I will begin to discusse this Question: And first I will take leave to state this Question a little more fully, and distinctly.
2. Your Assertion then is, That all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture. In this Assertion there be 2 things which need a full and distinct declaration. The first is to declare these words, Necessary to salvation. The second to declare those other words, Plainly set down in Scripture. And first concerning those words Necessary to salvation, they must of necessity be understood so, that all things are plainly set down in Scripture, which are necessary. First, to the Universal Church as it is a communitie. Secondly, all things which are necessary to all States, and Degrees that must needs be in this community. Thirdly, all things necessary to every single person bound to be of this community. As for the first, the Church being intended to be a community diffus'd through the whole World, and intended for a Perpetuity, must, by infallible authority be plainly told in what manner she is in all times and places to be provided of lawful Pastors, and that with perpetual Succession; and what power these Pastors have either in respect of one another, or in respect to their particular flocks, and what Lawes they may make, either single in regard of their flocks, or assembled in regard of the whole community; and how many, to this effect must be assembled; who must call their assembly, who perside in it, when it is to be accounted lawful when an unlawful assembly. Whether the Precepts of this assembly oblige under pain of damnation, to the keeping (for Example) of any Feast, as Christmasse, Ascension, or any Fast, as the Fast of Lent, of Christmasse Eve, and to this [Page 213] community it is also necessary to know what publick service may and ought to be imposed upon all, and when all are bound to be present at it. What Sacraments are to be administred, by whom, when the people are bound to use them, and how often, and in what manner and form they must be Administred. All these things are necessary to the Chuch as a community, and yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture, whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians, all undecidable by Scripture. Some of you contend according to Scripture that there must be Bishops with such and such Power and Authority, and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons, and without these no true Sacraments, things so necessary to the salvation of all men. Others answer in the words of your own doctrine, What is not plainly delivered in Scripture, is thereby signified not to be necessary. But it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authoritie. That Priests should be Ordained with such and such a Form, that none but Priests should have Power to blesse the Bread, administer the Sacraments; That this Bread must be Wheat-bread or Barley, or Oaten or Pease-bread. Therefore all these things are signified not to be necessary. The same Argument might be made of other such like Controversies, which certainly be no lesse necessary then the former to be decided; Though according to their Doctrine none of them should be necessary; Or, if necessary, they should be decidable by plain Scripture, and then your Doctours could not jarre about them, as they doe. Some of you will have no words at all necessary to the Administration of Baptisme, some will have such kinde of words, and others, words very different from them in substance.
Secondly, to speak now of such things as are of strict necessity to certain men, of certain states and degrees in the Church. Your Bishops must know how to ordain Priests, and with what form of words or actions. Where shall they find this plainly set down in Scripture? They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptize at all, or baptize in necessitie onely, and not out of it? 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. Priests must know what kind of Ordination is necessary for their Function, what commssion is necessary for their lawful Missions, and whether it can be granted by Lay-men, or no? as also their power to make and administer Sacraments, and yet none of these are plainly set down in Scripture, and endlesse controversies there be about them.
4. Thirdly, divers of the former things not set down plainly in Scripture, are necessary to be known by all men all being obliged to serve God in a true Church, having a lawful succession of true Pastors truly ordain'd themselves, and truly ordaining their Priests, who must be known to Administer true Sacraments in their true matter and form, preaching also the Word of God by lawful Mission. It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and doe somethings, and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture. Every one is to believe some things distinctly. Now which these things be, or how many, Scriptures expresse not. Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday. Every one is bound not to have two wives at one time, not also to marry within such and such a degree of consanguinity. Where be all these things plainly set down in Scripture? Of divers other things we shall yet say more. Yet even hence appeareth how many endlesse difficulties these words of yours Necessarie to salvation bring with them.
[Page 215]5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words Plainly set down in Scripture. First, to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture, so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sence of it, I must first know such a book to be the true, and undoubted Word of God, which (as I shall shew, Numb, 20.) cannot be known by Scripture, at least by those who can truly swear that they are no more able, by the reading of the book of Numbers for example, to discover in it any Divine Light, shewing it to be true Scripture, more then they discover in the books of Judith or Toby shewing them to be true Scripture. Secondly, they must infallibly shew that this very Verse, in which I find this point is not thrust in among other true parts of Scripture, or some word changing the sense, either thrust in, or left out in this Verse; and this they must know infallibly. Thirdly, after all this they must yet further know, and that infallibly, 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 [Page 216] 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, [Page 217] 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 [Page 218] 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 [Page 219] 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 [Page 220] 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. [Page 221] 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 [Page 222] 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 whole Canon is lost. How then know you that some necessary points, not delivered in other parts of Scripture, were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which have perished, and so are come not to be extant in writing? I desire your Answer to this Question.
Your second Text to prove this is Hebrews. 4, 12. The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper then any two edged sword, pierceing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit, and it is a discoverer of the thoughts and the intents of the heart. Here is the Text, but where is the contradictory conclusion inferring, 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? You argue thus. If you say the Word of God is a dead Letter it cannot speak, it is denied. If you say the Word of God cannot act, it is denied it is active [...]. But Sir, What if I say the Word of God speaks and speaks clearly many most profitable things, and that it sets down many most rare examples of Vertue, with excellent Principles, and Documents, and incitements to the same in a manner most forceable to strike fire out of a flinty heart; do I not, when I say this, say all that you have said? And when I have said all this, where is that evident consequence directly concluding, That all controversies necessary to salvation are plainly decided by Scripture alone? But to come at last to this Consequence you tell me, If you say it cannot decide Controversies what is said here? [Page 223] It is sharper then any two edged sword. But good Sir, I pray, to what use is the Word of God said to be sharper then any two edged sword? can you shew me any one clear, and evident syllable in this Text, telling me plainly, that this sharpnesse is in order, not onely to decide Controversies, but also all necessary Controversies, and to do this by it self alone. Where is then your contradictory Conclusion? But I will from hence directly conclude, that according to your own doctrine Saint Paul could not say in this Text, that the Word of God, is by it self alone sufficient to decide all necessary controversies, which I prove. The Word of God according to your own doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary controversies before the whole Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished. But Saint Paul said this of the Word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished; Therefore Saint Paul said this of the Word of God before the Word of God, was of it self alone sufficient to decide all necessary controversies. Therefore, then it had been false to say the Word of God had been sufficient to this end. Therefore St. Paul did not then say so. Again those words spoke not of the Word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth, but of the VVord of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church, in whose hands, hands guided by the Holy Ghost, this Word of God is so managed for the decision of controversies, that it is sharper then any two edged sword. For her declarations of Scripture be not fallible, but proceed from the same Spirit by which the Scripture was made as I shall shew. And so here is no fear of missing the right interpretation. You may securely submit your interior assent to the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Where this guidance is neglected, there we see with our eyes controversies in most main points dayly multiplied, and yet the Bible dayly consulted, and not one of those Controversies so much as lessened, but still encreased more [Page 224] and more. In these dayes he must put out his eyes who will not see this.
11. I have now answered the Texts you alledged in this place, but to the end that all the Texts, which you thought fittest to alledge to prove the most important Verity, may here be mustered up together, and their whole force appear to the full, I will set down here all the Texts which you alledge to this purpose. You then (page 52. in your answer to my 14. Numb.) urge, that Christ biddeth us scarch the Scriptures. But Sir, first you are to prove that these words clearly and evidently must of necessity be taken in the Imperative Mood, for without you do this, you can never prove evidently from hence that they contain a Command, and to prove this, especially evidently, is impossible. Because both the Greek and the Latine word is as truly and properly, and vulgarly the Indicative Mood as the Imperative, and our English Translatour might, if he had pleased, most faithfully have translated these words thus you do search the Scriptures. And Saint Cyril holdeth this to be the true sense L. 3. in Jo. C. 4. and your own great Dr. Beza holds the same. Secondly, suppose your Translator hath hit upon the right sense, and that Christ did indeed bid them search the Scriptures, because they clearly testifie that one point when he was the Messias, yet all this will help you to make no better consequence then you made before. And what a pritty conclusion is this. Christ bids us search the Scriptures because they testifie clearly that one point of which he spoke; Therefore the Scriptures testifie clearly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation. And no better is this consequence, Christ biddeth us search the Scriptures, therefore we are to attend them alone, we are not to attend to the Voyce of John, nor the Voyce from Heaven biding all to hear him, not to his own preaching, and miracles. Is not this also a good consequence? Saint Paul saith, if Women will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at [Page 225] home, 1 Cor. 14.35. Ergo, women are not to learn of the Ministers of the Church.
12. Your fourth Text is, You erre not knowing the Scriptures. Good Sir, give me now a Contradictory Conclusion. Shall it be this, Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture; or rather this; Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture; For this is the far stronger consequence from these words. For had all things been plainly set down, they should not have erred; But they erred, Therefore all things were not plainly set down. Again, they might erre in the knowledge of the Scriptures, because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretations, which is the most ready way to errour, especially when men oppose the publick Interpretation of the Church, as I shewed chap. 1. Numb. 3. last words saith the Bereans.
13. Your first Text, is 2 Pet 1. v. 19. We have also a more sure word of Prophesie, whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place untill the day dawn and the Day-star arise in your soules. Your proof from this Text is just as weak, as the proof from the last Text but one; for just as that Text, so also this saith that, that one point, of Jesus his being the true Son of God, and the Messias, might clearly be found in the Scripture. How will you inferre? Ergo All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, because one thing is plainly set down. Every Veritie set down in Scripture is a most sure infallible Veritie. But, whence have you that every Verity necessary to salvation is set down in the Scripture? And yet again, where have you that all things necessary to Salvation were then set down plainly in Scripture when Saint Peter spoke these words, which he spoke many years before the whole Canon of Scripture was finished? But before the whole Canon was finished it was false to say, All [Page 226] things necessary to salvation were clearly set down in Scripture; Therefore if Saint Peter had said this in this Text, he had said that which was false, Therefore, It is false that Saint Peter said in this Text, that all things necessary to salvation were plainly set down in Scripture.
14. Your next and last Text is Act. 17. where it is said of the Bere [...]s, They received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so. Good Sir, whilest this text is now fresh in our minds, shew me here any one evident clear syllable which saith, the Bereans did search the Scriptures before they believed Saint Paul. Nay is it not first said, They received the Word with all readinesse of mind, to wit, they received the Word as many other thousands did (whose proceedings you can never prove less laudable then the Bereans) upon those Motives which Saint Paul proposed unto them, before they searched the Scriptures, and being by these motives and instructions well illightned to understand the Scriptures, they for their further comfort and confirmation searched the Scriptures dayly to see whether they testified the same point: and this one point of our Saviours coming, being clearly in Scripture, perhaps Saint Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it. Neither hence is it made evident that the Old Testament was thrust into every mans hand of the Bereans, but that they deputed their chief Doctours to make this search, and that for this one point onely. Whence (as I said before) your consequence from hence is very weak; That all points necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, because this one point was so. Yea, when the Bereans did search the Scriptures, no part of the New Testament was written, how strangely then do you prove from their search of the Old Scripture to find one point set down clearly, that all points necessary to be found are set down plainly, now the new Scripture is written.
15. Having now examined all the Texts upon which [Page 227] you did ground that main point, that all things necessary to decide all controversies are plainly set down in Scripture, and having found this point no where plainly set down, I from hence plainly conclude, that the belief of this point is not plainly necessary; And I conclude this by your own words, That what is not plainly set down in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary; We are not therefore obliged to take the Scripture for our only Judge of controversies, for where is this Obligation plainly set down in Scripture? And for ought we can yet see there may be many prime controversies no where plainly decided, yea or so much as lightly insinuated in Scripture. And yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable controversies, because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church, built upon a Rock the pillar and ground of truth, having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truths? Frivolous is that Objection which saith, If it be a point necessary to salvation to believe that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our controversies we should find this plainly set down in Scripture. Because as we have proved all this while, all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture, even such points as might import the ending of all controversies: to wit this your grand point, All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture; Yea the Texts which I bring chap. 4. are a hundred times more clear to prove that the Church is to decide all our controversies, then that the Scripture by it self alone is to decide them, as any man may see by the attentive reading of these my Texts there and your Texts here. See there Numb. 58. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65.
16. Though it might evidently serve to prove against you, That all things necessary to Salvation be not plainly set down in Scripture, that this very prime point is not plainly set down in Scripture, yet I have already in the beginning of this Chapter brought many other strong [Page 228] proofs to which according to good order I should here add those many more which I am yet to bring. But you interpose so many things by the way, that I am forced to defer those other arguments. Yet that my Reader may know briefly what they are, and how many (and so read them here if he please,) I thought good to tell him that I prove yet further many necessary points to Salvation not to be plainly set down in Scripture. For we find not there set down evidently. First, Whether it be damnable to work upon the Sunday? see Numb. 39. Secondly, Whether the King be the head of the Church? see Num. 41. Thirdly, Which books be the undoubted true Canonical Scriptures? see Numb. 42. And particularly, Whether St. Matthews Gospel be the undoubted word of God? Numb. 42.46. Fourthly, Whether it be clear in your opinion that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Extreme unction? see Numb. 58. Fiftly, Whether also it be clear that Christ doth not give us his true body in the Sacrament? Numb. 59. Sixthly, I shew divers points necessary to Salvation, for which you cannot shew evident Scripture. As, That God the Father is not begotten, God the Sonne is begotten and not made: And that he is Consubstantial to his Father; That God the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten, but doth proceed, and that both from the Father and from the Son: see Numb. 60. Seventhly, I presse for an evident Text for Baptizing Infants, or bringing them to be baptized when Parents can, which you hold necessary for all Parents. Numb. 61. I might have added that great Question, Whether it be necessarie to rebaptize those who be baptized by Hereticks. For as Saint Austin saith De Unitate Eccle. c. 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read (in Scripture) Neither by you nor by me. Yet if there were any wise man, of whom our Saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this Question, we should make no doubt (Mark this thou impugner of the infallibilitie of the Church) We should make no doubt to perform what he [Page 229] should say; Lest we should seem, not so much to gain say him, as to gainsay Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended? Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after: Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony commands the Church. I alledge these words for their convincing reason, and not for the authority of Saint Austin, with whom you are so little satisfied.
17.Of my 6. Number. But now I must satisfie such questions as you are still interposing against, what I said; I said then, that, being Scriptures cānot be shew'd for the decision of all necessary Controversies, we must see further what Judge God hath appointed us to follow in the decision of them, & appointed us with an Obligation to submit to him; because we gainsaying him, should seem not so much to gainsay him as to gainsay Christ by whom this Judge was appointed to be heard by us, just as Saint Austin discoursed now. But this our Discourse pleaseth not you. You say, This spoyls all, contradicts all. Because you suppose that such a Judge may contradict Scripture. Very likely! A Judge given by God, with a Commission to direct all to salvation, and to that end assisted by his Spirit never departing from his mouth, but abiding with him for ever, to teach him all truth, that he should contradict the truth it self. Is not this called contradiction, to say, that God can testifie of such an one that he shall alwayes teach truth, the Spirit of truth never departing from his mouth, and yet to say that he shall contradict Scriptures. Vain therefore is your fear that there should be solid reasons grounded in Scripture, against the doctrine of such a Judge, who himself is the pillar and ground of truth, and whose tongue is directed by the same Spirit who directed the Pens of those who writ the Scripture.
18. This Spirit of truth did not direct that pen which in your paper did write that foul calumny, which you utter in these words. We must then if he, (the Pope) saith Vices [Page 230] are Vertues, say so too, as your Bellarmine determins in his fourth Book De Romano Pontifice C. 5. Good Sir, read this place again, and see if you can hold blushing. If I should discourse thus with a child, and say, know (dear child) that in no possible case it is lawful to call Vice Vertue. And this child should childishly say, Sir, How if God the Father should say, such a thing is a Vertue, and Christ should preach that such a thing were a Vice, were not I bound in this case to say that such a Vertue is a Vice. Dear child would I say, this cannot happen. But if the child should still more childishly press me, Sir. But what if this should happen? then I must say so, must I not? Yes (child) when, that shall grow to be possible, which is wholly impossible, Then say, Vices are Vertues. Would not this child be the veriest child that ever escaped the name of a fool, if he should say, that I taught a case to be possible in which Vices might be called Vertues. Bellarmin saith in plain words It is impossible the Pope should erre (especially with a Council) commanding any Vice. And when he had proved this by other arguments he addeth also this proof, That (if he could command any Vice) he then should necessarily erre against faith (which before he had proved he could not do) seeing that Faith teacheth all Vertue to be good, all Vice to be bad. Then to those, who will childishly know, what the people must do when the Pope, who (with a Council at least) cannot erre against faith, should erre against Faith, he answereth, that when this impossible thing happeneth, the Church should be bound to believe Vices to be good, and Vertues evil, unlesse she would sin against her conscience. Even so Sir, when Christ or Saint Paul, shall be found teaching that to be Vice, which God, had before in the old Scripture revealed to be Vertue, you shall be bound to hold it a Vertue, because God hath revealed it in the old Scripture; and also that it is Vice, because, Christ (truth it self) taught it so in the New Testament. But you shall not be bound to this, untill that happen which [Page 231] cannot happen. And so said Bellarmine of the other Case; God forgive these wilful or exceeding carelesse slanders.
19. Let us at last go on to see who must be our Judge in all Controversies, All Protestants do say, (as I noted) that the Scripture, and only the Scripture, is left us by Christ our Judge to end all Controversies. And in this their Tenet they agree with all Hereticks who have risen up against the Church of Christ. Here you fall upon me as if I spoke against the use of Scripture in Controversies. But Sir it is one thing to use Scripture for the proof of some points, and another thing to say Scripture, and only 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? The force of my argument in effect is this. All Offenders against the Law will never be so much their own condemners, as to choose, on their own accord, a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned. Therefore when we see all Offendors against Gods Law in point of Heresie, choose on their own accord, to be judged by Scripture, it is a manifest sign that they know, they shall never be condemned clearly by Scripture, whom they took, for their Judge, because (before they broached their errors) they knew all that this Judge would say against them. And they knew also by what glosses and interpretations they could escape the being clearly condemned, by any thing which their Judge could say, Is not this true? And is it not also true, that you give so ample scope to these kind of glosses and interpretations, that, if you in particular be perswaded that whole General Councils, one after another, have interpreted such Texts in a false sense, you may firmly believe your own particular interpretation. I think it would pose you, to find any Hereticks living before these dayes, who were so presumtious as to uphold any opinion which they held condemned [Page 232] before in a lawful general Councel. No Catholick I am sure did ever do it.
20. Now, by reason our Adversaries are still detracting from us, as if we detracted from Scripture, because we hold that God did not intend by it alone (otherwise then by sending us to the Church) to decide all Controversies, I did shew that we onely did truly believe Scripture. For he onely truly believeth a thing with Divine faith, who groundeth his assent upon Divine Revelation. Our Adversaries doe not doe this. We onely doe it. I will shew both these things to be true, though I be forced to be somewhat large, for I can no where more profitably enlarge my self then in these things which touch the ground of Faith, about which our main Controversie is. I say then that our Adversaries do not by Divine Faith believe the Scriptures to be Gods Word. For no body can believe this, with Divine Faith, who doth not ground his assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation. But our adversaries do not ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation, for they can shew no where the Revelation upon which they believe such and such Books to be Gods Word. Shew me for example where God hath revealed that St. Matthewes Gospel is the Word of God; shew me also the Revelation for which you believe other Books. What say you to this? You say That the Canonical Books are worthy to be believed (and so is the Book of Toby and Judith as well as these) for themselves, as we assent unto prime Principles in the habit of Intelligence by their own Light so we doe assent to Scripture to be the Word of God through the help of the Spirit of God as by its own Light. And again, afterwards, The Canonical Bookes (why not Toby and Judith,) bear witnesses of themselves. They carry their own light which we may see them by, as we see the Sun by its own light. Good Sir, Have you brought all the infallibility of christian Religion unto this last ground, and here left it on the ground to be trampled by Socinians? [Page 233] Do you exspect that rational men should believe you when you say in plain English, that, as the first Principals are so evident of themselves, that they need no proof, for example, That the whole is greater then any part of the whole, that if this be equal to that, it is equal to whatsoever is equal to that; so it is a thing, of it self evident, that such a book; (for example, Saint Matthewes Gospel) is the true and infallible Word, and that this is so clear that it needs no other proof, but the reading of it to make it manifestly infallible; even as the Sun needs no other evidence then his own light to be manifestly known. All that you believe, you ground upon the Scripture, as upon the true Word of God; and when you are further pressed to know upon what ground you believe the books of Scripture to be the infallible Word of God, you confess in plain tearms, that the only infallible ground of this is, that this is evident of its own self, needing no further proof for the requiring an infallible assent unto it. Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitiful a case as your Adversaries could wish it.
21. First, this ground is accounted a plain foolish ground by your renowned Chillingworth, whose book the most learned of both Universities have owned and magnified, notwithstanding his scornful Language of this ground of your whole Religion. Chillingworth then (P. 69. N. 49.) answering these words of his Adversary, That the Divinitie of a writing cannot be known by it self alone, but by some extrinsecal authoritie, Replieth thus. This you need not prove for no wise man denieth it. And Doctor Covel in his defence, Art. 4. P. 31. It is not the Word of God which doth or possible can assure us that we doe well to think it the Word of God. And Master Hooker writeth thus. Of things necessary the very chief is to know what Books we are to esteem Holy, which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach. So he Eccl. Pol. L. 1. S. 14. P. 86. That which this man whom some call, the most learned Protestant amongst the [Page 234] English who put pen to paper, that which this man and Dr. Covet holdeth as an impossibility, and consequently for a mere Chymera, you hold not onely possible, but evident, and not only evident but as evident as the Suns being seen by his own light, and not onely so evident, but evident with a sufficient certaintie to ground on infallible assent, which is a far higher degree than the certainty we have of our seeing the Sun by his Light, which depends upon our fallible sense; but this must be an infallible ground, or else your faith of this cannot be infallible. Yea, your own self, when you least thought of it (when in another place I urged the necessity of a Church to judge all Controversies) acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church to declare, by infallible authority, which Books be the true Word of God, which not; then to declare any other point; where as, if it had been true, that this point might as well be seen infallibly, by the onely reading of such Books, as the Sun is seen by his light, there should have been less necessity of such an infallible Declaration; for of all unnecessary things no thing would be more unnecessary then another light, by which we might see the Sun more clearly.
22. Secondly, there be many millions, who cannot truly and sincerely protest before God, and take it upon their salvations, that they are wholy unable, by the reading these books, to come to an infallible assurance that these be Gods Word, or to any such assurance as cometh near infallibility. Now Sir, I pray tell me, what means hath God provided to bring these men to this infallible assurance, which they are obliged under pain of damnation to have? For he shall be damned who doth not infallibly believe the Scripture; If you tell me it is impossible that after fervent prayer to God they should still have no infallible knowledge, assuring them such and such books are Gods Word, I must needs tell you it is impossible for me, and (as I thinke) for any wise man to believe you.
[Page 235]23. Thirdly, if your opinion of knowing true Scripture, by the reading of them, were true, then let but a Heathen, Turk, or Jew, read the Gospel, he must, by reading of it, see it as clearly to be Gods Word, as he must see the Sun by his light. And again, because all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in the Word of God (as you teach) the same Heathen should plainly see all things necessary to salvation warranted him by the undoubted Word of God. If this were true, it is impossible that thousands should not be yearly converted by this means. How cometh it then to pass that the reading of Scriptures alone, did never find that concurrence of Gods grace to convert any single man (that we could hear of) whereas the Preachers of the Church of God have found this concurrence of Gods grace to the conversion of millions.
24. Fourthly, nothing being to be believed (as you teach) but Scripture, it followeth that the faith (by which we believe Scripture to be Gods Word) must be the very first ground of all faith upon which all is built, and the greatest light of Christian Veritie; how incredible a thing then is it, that this should be true, and that the prime Doctours of the Church, in none of their so many writings concerning our faith, should never mention this? and that no small glimpse of this light should be observable in the writings of all Antiquitie? In which the most observing eyes cannot espy the least glimpse of it. Reply, I think if the Doctours of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens that they had no better assurance for all the points of their (then new) faith then the Word of God written, and no greater assurance that such and such writings were his undoubted Word, then the very reading of those books did give them, by a light as evident as the Sun, the Heathens would have scoffed at them for saying that which they protested to be so visible, and yet none could see it but those who first believe it upon this evidence to them wholly invisible.
[Page 236]25. Fifthly, I argue thus. Take a book, which you hold not to be Gods undoubted word; The book of Toby (for example) or Judith, and read these books over. And then take another book, which you hold to be Gods undoubted Word, for example, the book of Numbers, and read that over, or rather to end the sooner (read over only as many Chapters as be in the book of Toby, that is 16. and then I challenge you to tell me if you can (as surely you can if it be as cleare (as Sun shine) in what Chapter, Verse, or Word, any divine rayes (and such rayes as are sufficiently observable to produce an infallible assent, that such a book is Gods undoubted word) which rayes be not to the very full as observable in the same chapter and verse or equivolent word, of the book of Toby: What would you have us doe with our eyes to keep us from seing how clearly this is impossible for you to doe, which notwithstanding should be most easie, if your opinion were true or the truth.
26. Sixthly, if any one verse yea or any one small word, (especially this litle word Not be left out in any Chapter either through ignorance, malice or carelesnes of those writers, whose Copies our printed books have followed, whom will you be able to make believe that you are so sharp-sighted, as to see this omssion by a light, sufficient for an infallible beliefe of it onely by the reading these Scriptures.
27. Seventhly, To prove that true general Councels be fallible you use often to alledge this argument, that one true generall Councell directly gainsaith another, which if you could prove) you should indeed prove that the Councils are fallible. But I can prove unto you that one who readeth the same book as well as you, and hath the true Spirit of God as well as you (if not in a larger measure) shall flatly say that Book not to be Gods Word, which you without all doubt affirm to be Gods infallible Word. This ground then of knowing which is, which [Page 237] is not Gods Word, grounding contradictory opinions must needs be false, as I prove thus, Luther a [...]an acknowledged by your common consent to have had Gods Spirit, did read over the Epistle of Saint James, and held it to be an Epistle of straw. He did read over the Book of the Apocalips or Revelations and held it not to have been written by an Apostolical Spirit. You read over these books, and protest so seriously, that by the light of them you infalliblely know them, to be Gods true Word. Your two opinions are flat contradictory, and yet they are both grounded upon this ground of reading these books with the Spirit of God.
Therefore this ground is fallible, and consequently cannot ground an infallible faith of this point. But you have no other infallible faith of this point, but what is grounded on this fallible ground, Ergo the faith you have of this point is not an infallible, and divine faith, but a meer humane perswasion, such as we have to believe the works, Virgils to have been written by Virgil. But if any desire to have this case put in two Men, whom most of the world will more assuredly believe to have had the true Spirit of God, and to have had also as cleere-sighted eyes, as most men we know in all mankind, I will put the case in the two prime Doctours of the Latine Church, Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin. Saint Hierome read over the bookes of the Machabees, and could not by the reading of them see them infallibly to be Gods Word. St. Austin read these books, and held them infallibly to be Gods Word. How came these two most sharp-sighted men to see quite contrary to one another by the self same most clear Light, as you must say. But we deny that either of them did see this Light, and that by it onely they did see which were true, which false Scriptures. But we say they both followed in this point the proposition of the Church, which Church in Saint Hieromes time had not clearly proposed the book of Machabees to be Gods word. But the third Council of Garthage (at which Austin was present) [Page 238] declared these Books to be Gods Word, and so Saint Austin held th [...] Books infallibly to be Gods Word, grounding this his belief upon the Declaration of the Council at Carthage, which Council saith (Canon 47.) that it did set down these books for Scripture, because we have received from our Fathers that those are to be read in the Church. Saint Hierome had not seen this Council of Carthage; and because he was used to ground his faith, by which he believed such books to be, or not be Gods Word upon the Declaration of the Church, therefore until he did see that Declaration, he could not hold this as infallible, which Saint Austin afterwards held infallible because he had seen afterwards that Declaration of the Church. This is an excellent proof of our Opinions, and disproof of yours, which cannot give any kind of reason for their disagreeing in a thing so clear as you say this point is.
28. Hence you will see that this Evidence upon which you ground your infallible assent to believe Scripture, to be Gods Word (and then all the rest for Gods Word believed so ungroundedly) is not improperly by you compared to that Evidence, by which the first Principles, shew themselves to be evidently true, as this Principle doth, It is impossible that any thing should be so, and yet not be so in all the selfsame circumstances. For who ever did differ about such a Principle as this is. All men see the Evidence of these Principles. But none but a few of your sect, see the Evidence of what you say. Yea they evidently see there is no such evidence to be seen. And if you say that we must have a special spirit (that is, new eyes) to see it, Then you, who have this spirit, are all Prophets discovering by private Revelations made to your selves, that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover. But now, when I see all, and every one of your belief, laying claime to the Sprit, assisting them even as farre as infallibility to the hardest of all points, I hope no prudent man will thinke that Gods Church may not lay claim [Page 239] (with a thousand times far greater reason) to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost assisting her even to infallibility in points of as much consequence, the Church having far more proof of his assistance, then every private Protestant. Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scripture, An undoubted Principle, the first Principle; you think they hold this Principle like the first Principle in Sciences, which are therefore indemonstrable, because they are of themselves as evident, as any reason you can bring to make them more evident. But the Scripture is onely said to be an unquestionable Principle, because it is already granted to be Gods Word by all parties. But why all grant it, all must give the reason, for the Scripture of it self cannot shew it self to be infallibly Gods Word as I have proved.
29. Eighthly and lastly, if you intend for the solution of any of the former Arguments (though you cannot escape most of them by that shift) to fly to the private assistance of the spirit, helping you to see that, which this light of the Scriptures alone cannot help them unto, then you must come infallibly to know you have this help from the spirit of truth: for it you know this onely fallibly, that will not help you to an infallible assent. Now how can you know this infallibility but by a Revelation secure from all illusion? Tell me how you came by this Revelation? Did you trie the Spirit whether it were of God or no? If no, how are you then secured? If you did, by what infallible means did you trie it? If you can by Scripture, we must needs laugh, because we speak of the first act of belief by which you, or any other first began to believe the Scripture to be infallibly Gods Word. Before you believed the Scripture to be Gods infallible Word you could not by it (as by a means infallible to your judgement) trie your spirit, and know it to be infallibly the Spirit of truth. Again, you could not know it to be the Spirit of ruth, until you had first an infallible assurance that the [Page 240] Scripture (by which you did try it) was infallibly Gods true word. And yet again you could not have an infallible assurance that such books of Scripture were Gods infallible word, but by this infallible assurance you had, that this Spirit helping you to see this, was the Spirit of Truth: so that you could not be infallibly assured of your Spirit until you had infallible assurance that the Scripture was Gods Word; and you could not have infallible assurance that the Scripture was Gods Word untill you were infallibly assured of your Spirit; Is not this clearly to walk in a Circle with the wicked?
30. Having now shewed that you (who reject the infallibility of the Church) have left your selves no infallible ground, upon which you can believe that most Fundamental Article of belief, to wit, that such and such Books be infallibly Gods true Word; I am pressed to shew what infallible belief we have of this point, and how we avoid all Circle. I Answer that we ground the beliefe of this point upon the authority of the Church, as being Infallible in proposing the Verities she hath received from God. This infallibility I do not suppose, but prove at large, Chapter 4. If you have not patience to stay, turn now to that place. You falsly say that Whatsoever authority the Church hath towards this perswasion you also make use of as a motive to this faith. She hath an infallible authority, which you count a fancy, and make no other use of it, but to scoff at it; and yet this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth, not this perswasion, but this infallible assent. Take the Church as a most grave assembly of pious learned men, without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, and their authority is but humane, and so all the help you can have from them will not ground an infallible assent, which we must have in our belief, to hold Scripture infallible to be Gods Word. The Scriptures (as I have shewed) have no where revealed which bookes be Scripture, which not; and so we have [Page 241] no other infallible ground left us but the authority of this Church, as assisted infalliblie by the Holy Ghost. Some thing even in this place, I shall adde of this infallability so to satisfy your present longing.
31. But for the present you are endeavoring to include me in a Circle as I did you in the last objection why (say you) do I believe the Scripture to be Gods word. Because the Church saith it. Very Well. Why do I believe the Church? Because the Scripture beareth witnes of it. No Sir. You never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spoke to one, who independently of the Church, did professe him selfe to believe the Scripture so be Gods Word, as you do, who professe to believe this upon an infallible assurance received (as you say) from Gods Word by the very reading of it. Against those who upon another account (different from the infallible authority of the Church, receive Gods Word!) I prove, that according to that word of God, the Church is to be heard and believed, as the piller and ground of truth. And for this point I produce as clear Texts as you do for most of those points which you hold necessary for Salvation. But if you be a Scholler you know that all our Divines in their Treatises of faith, put this very question which you here put Why do you believe the church? and not one of them answereth as you here make us answer; that so you might the better impugn us with the applause of the deceived multitude. Sir, when we deal with those who have not admitted the Scriptures as infallible, we do not prove them to be so by the Authority of the Church, without first proving to them this Authority of the Church (and that independently of Scripture) to be infallible. Now if you aske me how I doe this? then indeed you speak to the purpose, though not to your purpose which was to shut me up in a Circle into which you see, I never set foot.
[Page 242]32. Now, if you will still be earnest to know why I do believe this Church to be infallible; I answer, that to give full satisfaction against all that a caviller can say, requireth a Treatise longer then this whole Treatise. What I have said is sufficient to avoid all Circle, when withal I shall have told you that we proceed as securely and groundedly in the reasons for which we believe, the Church to have received from God, Commission to teach us those infalfallible Verities, which she hath received from God, with infallible certainty, as many millions have proceeded in their imbracing the true Faith, whose proceedings no man can condemn. I pray, why did the Jewes believe their Prophets to have had Commission from God to deliver his Word infallibly to them by word of mouth, and by writing? Surely as they most prudently believed what the Prophets taught them by word of mouth to be infallibly true, because spoken by those, whom God gave Commission to say what they said; so they most prudently believed what the same men did deliver to them by their writings as Gods Word, because written by those, whom God gave Commission unto to write what they writ. The credit and belief given as well to their writings, as to their words unwritten, was at last found prudently accepted upon the Motives, upon which they accepted their Commissions as given by God for their infallible instruction. All were moved prudently to accept of this their Commission, because God did own it for his by several Miracles, or other most apparent proofs, testifying to the people the infallible Commission which those Prophets, and Scripture writers had, to teach them by words, or writing, or both. Their wits then were induced to accept of this their Commission as truly given by God, moved thereunto by such prudent Motives, that it had been a high act of imprudence (which in point of salvation is damnable) to have disbelieved them; for example, they did either see such apparent Miracles, or such notorious force of Doctrine, [Page 243] working visibly so strange changes of manners, and in so many before so vitious, to a life very Vertuous, and sometimes vertuous in a stupidious degree. The writers of the New Testament had these divine attentions yet more abundantly (though the others cannot be denied sufficient) whence as from their only words not yet written many thousands received their faith, because they first prudently were induced by these Motives to acknowledge them to have had a true Commission from God, to say to us in his Name all that they said, and then because they acknowledged this Commission to be from God, they believed infallibly all what they said, because they said it with Commission from God to say it. So by their words now written by them in the Scriptures, which they delivered unto them, many thousands received their Faith, because first prudently they were induced by these Motives to acknowledge these writers to have had a true Commission from God to write what they did write in his Name, and then because they acknowledged this Commission to have been from God they did believe infallibly all that they did write, because they did write it with Commission from God. Thus you see upon what assurance, those who first received the Scriptures did receive them for Gods VVord. The Apostles gave their writings to the prime Prelates and Pastors of the Church, assuring them in Gods Name that these writings were Gods VVord. These Pastors and Prelates preached to the people that they should admit of these writings as Gods true VVord. VVhat they preached was believed with an infallible assent upon the authoritie of the prime Pastours of the Church. They were prudently induced to give an infallible assent to their authority by these strong Motives by which they had demonstrated themselves to have Commission from God to teach his Doctrine, both by word and writing. Thus was the first Age assured of Gods Word by the Oral Tradition of the first Pastors of the Church, [Page 244] assuring them also that the Spirit of truth would abide with the Church, teaching her all truth, and that they were to hear the Church under pain of being accounted Publicans and Heathens and that she should be unto them as the piller and ground of truth: for as they did write, so doubtless they did teach these things. These first Christians then received this doctrine with an assent as infallible as they received the Scriptures. And so all then believed and all taught their Successors to believe the Church to have such infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost, that in all doubts arising about faith they were to submit unto her, as to one having Commission from God to declare all such matters. The second Age by so universal, so full, so manifest a tradition, was most prudently induced to acknowledge the church to have such a Commission from God, and so they believe the Church for this divine authority given her. Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible then universal tradition; A miracle to confirm that there is such a City as London, though in it self it were a surer motive, would not work so undoubted a beliefe in the minds of those who never did see London, as universal tradition worketh. And yet this tradition is but one of the motives which induceth us to acknowledge the Church to have received Commission to declare with infallible authority the Verities received from the Apostles, and consequently her declarations to be admitted with infallible assent for her authority. But I must needs note that this motive of tradition alone, did serve to make all for the first 2000 yeares and more, give an infallible assent to their Church see Ch. 4. Number 11. yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolved their faith then. Why did they believe then that the Soul was immortal. Because God said so by his Church. having Commission to teach us all we are to believe. Why believed they that this Church had Commission to teach them as Authorized with due infallibilitie? Because [Page 245] the same Church told them so. Why did they believe this? Because they would do so, And they would do so because, it had been meere folly not to accept of this Churches Commission to teach them infallibly all truths, which Commission they knew by tradition to have been ever accepted as divine by all good people; so we &c. I will adde one Motive more.
33. Miracles are called a Testimony greater then Iohn the Baptist. Christ himself said, If you will not believe me, believe my Works? By this great testimony of Miracles God hath often owned the doctrine of the Romane Church, even as it is in this our dayes. For he knoweth but litle of the world, who doth not know the vast extent of those Provinces and Kingdomes which in this last Age the Preachers of the Roman Faith have added to their Faith by this Testimony of God, by Signes and Wonders, and divers Miracles, Hebrewes 2.4. And here most Visibly, Our Lord ever working withall, and confirming their words by Signes and Miracles. It appeareth also by the History of Bede and the plain confession of your learned Magdeburgians, that the faith brought into our England by St. Austin, was the same faith which you abolished by your Reformation, as you call it. And yet again it appeareth by Bede and St. Gregory his Epistles, that wonderful were the miracles which St. Austin wrought in Confirmation of the faith preached, in so much that St. Gregory thought it necessary to admonish him of conteining himself in humility, lest the working of so many miracles should puff him up. These Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church. God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles. Therefore the doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles. And it may for this motive be imbrac'd with as infallible an assent as the doctrine of the Prophets and Apost. Yea, there have bin many miracles wrought to testifie many & very many of those points in particular in wch we differ frō you. As you may see shew'd by Brierly only by looking in his Index. 5. miracles, but see him particularly, T. 2. C. 3 Tr. S. 7. Subdivis, [Page 246] And Tr. 1. S. 5. There you shall see how solidly grounded these Miracles are, against which you can object nothing which is not objected with equal probabilitie by Heathens against the Miracles of the Prophets, and by Jewes against those of the Apostles. Tell me then if these two motives (though there be yet many others) be not as powerful inducements to move us to acknowledge that God hath given his Church infallible authoritie to teach us faithfully which she received from him, as were those motives for which the Jewes did prudently believe that the Scripture given them by David, by Salomon, by Nahum, by Amos and others, were written with infallible authoritie by them, having Commission from God to write what they did write. We then believe the Church to have such a Commission with as good security as they acknowledged this Commission in those Scripture writers. Whereas the ground upon which you believe Scripture is thought to be foolish and Chimerical by some of your best Writers.
34. Yet to shew further how unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith, I did add this argument that the true Original Scriptures were written in languages not knowne to one among ten thousand, if we speake of a perfect knowledge. Others must trust the Translations of private men, and believe them rather then the Translations used by the Church in general Councils Is it not cleere that the Authority of such Translations is far greater, and far more to be judged to agree with the true Original, then any of your private Mens Translations? You your selfe confesse that Translations are only so far Gods word as they agree with the originals, whence I infer that no body in your opinion can believe any point upon the authority of any Translations, until he be assured that such a point agreeth with the true Hebrew or true Greek Original; How disappointed then be most of your Religion, especially your women, who so fiercely fly upon us for believing the Church, whilest they themselves [Page 247] must either believe nothing (for they cannot believe any thing upon the credit of the English Translation, until they know how exactly it agreeth with the true Greek, or true Hebrew Original, which is wholy impossible for them) or else they must merely take upon trust the most fallible Translations for the infallible Original, and trust rather in this most important point the learning, and fair dealing of those private Ministers (deeply interessed in this cause) then trust the gratest authority upon earth, which is a general Council having so strong promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost. I intreat you here to see Chapter 4. Numb. 9.
35. Again, I pray tell me how you learned Ministers who have so full knowledge of these languages as to Translate, and upon your own knowledge to judge of true Translations made by others, of you it is that I ask how you come to know (and know so sufficiently as to ground an infallible assent in your selves and others) when your Translations agree with the true Original? For you have now confessed that Translations are only so far Gods word as they agree with the Originals. And you must mean the true Originals or else you say nothing, for agreeing with false or doubtful Originals will not make them Gods undoubted Word. Tell me, (I say it again, and again) how do you know which be the true, and undoubtedly true Originals? and upon what secure ground do you know it? The true Originals be either Hebrew or Greek; As for the Hebrew, all must know that the ancient Hebrew Copies were all written without points, that is, in full substance without Vowels. Now they be the Vowels which make or marre the word and sense; for a Vowell addeth the soul and the sound to the consonants, and maketh them signify most different things. For example, for a Ball write only b ll to which consonants if you adde an (a) it is Ball, adde an (e) it is Bell, adde an (u) and it is a Bull, So that, great confusion must needs follow if the [Page 248] true points, that is the true Vowells were not put to the same Consonants. Well now again, all must know that a good while after the time of Christ and his Apostles, the Jewish Rabbies, under pretence of avoyding the mistakes which might happen in the lesse skilfull in the Hebrew tongue (which then was almost worn out) did take the old Hebrew Testament, and put the points, that is the Vowels unto it, so that the old Testament we now use came from these Jewish hands. Tell me then how know you infallibly whither these perfidious Jewes had skill, and honesty enough to deliver to us their Copies with the true points and Vowells; and yet all depends on this. The consonants alone will not assure us in these unskilful, and so remote ages. For the least change in appoint maketh most contrary things to be all one, for no Man can tell (especially infallibly) whether these words an Angel had a b ll in his hand should be read thus, an Angel had a Ball, in his hand or a Bell, or a Bill, or a Bull. Put a false Vowel and it is all one. To tast cheese and to tost cheese, all one; to be fatt and to be fitt, to increase in Grace and to increase in Grece, all one; to eat a bitter fig and to eat a better fig. A pot ful of butter, and a Pit ful of Batter, will be the same. Hence you see the small infallibility you have of the possessing the true undoubted Originall Hebrew old Testament. As for the new testament. Saint Mathewes Gospel was Originally written in Hebrew, and that Originall is quite lost. Now the other Greek Originalls which we have, have a stupendious Variety, He who found the word Infallible so unfortunate to him (which you obiect to me) telleth of his own knowledge a story most unfortunate to you and yours (which I have also h eapd by an other way,) His words are these. In my hearing Bishop Usher, professed, that whereas he had of many yeares before a desire to publish the Testament in Greek with Various Lections and Annotations, and for that purpose had used great diligence and spent much money to furnish himself [Page 249] with Manuscripts, yet in conclusion he was forced to desist utterly least, if he should ingenuously have noted all the several differences of readings which himself had collected, the incredible multitude of them almost in every verse, should rather have made Men Atheisticall then satisfy them in the true reading of any particular passage. An evident signe that the Governours of the Church did not onely rely upon what was in writing. So Cressy Exomol. C. 8. N. 3. Now if another in Spain, another at Constantinople or other in some remote part from these had bestowed the like or greater expences, and industries in procuring Varieties of Manuscripts, it is most probable they might have in these places found in every one of them, as great variety of lections, which multitude of Lections Usher alone found to be incredible almost in every vers. The Manuscripts which were before all printing being so exceeding different, what assurance have those who did first print such, or such a Manuscript, rather then a hundred Manuscripts (different from that which they printed) that the Manuscript, which was the true undoubted Copy of the true undoubted Originall was printed by them, and published to the world, which now contents it self with printed Copies onely, and not one among twenty thousand hath recourse to any old written Manuscripts; or if they have recourse to any such Manuscript, or Manuscripts, yet they are so wonderfull farre from having any full assurance, that such Manuscripts be the true undoubted Copies, of the true undoubted Original; that they approach not one inch nearer the Assurance of the Truth, by having Recourse to such Manuscripts. And here it is that I may farre fitter use these your owne words (used in another place against me;) Alas Sir, At what a losse are you and yours in this grand and capital and comprehensive controversie, which affords me liberty to think, that which is intricated with so many unspeakable difficulties and most manifest uncertainties, is not that manifest ground of certainty, [Page 250] and infallible certainty, by which fools cannot erre; for what else can a Collier have infallibly to guide him through all these Labyrinths, whose windings are made more unextricable by lying so far from the least glimpse of any Light: For as you say Translations are only so farre Gods Word as they agree with the Originals, that is with such Originals as are the true and undoubted Copies of the true and undoubted Original. But (say I) it is impossible for any man living (who accounteth the judgment of the Church to be fallible) to know infallibly, which Translation agree with the true undoubted Originals, and which not, because it is impossible for him to know which be the true undoubted Originals, and which not. Therefore it is impossible for any man living (who accounteth the judgement of the Church to be fallible) to know which Translations be the word of God and which not. You then have neither infallible assurance of translation, nor of Original, and consequently you have no assurance of any part of Scripture to be God assured Word. And yet all the assurance of your faith is built upon this, of which you have no assurance at all. For you have no assurance of either Translation or Original or Interpretation of any one book or how many or which books make up the whole Canon.
36. As for our assurance of the Word of God it dependeth not upon these inextricable uncertainties. If those who received the first true Original Coppy did upon good ground receive it, relying upon the authority of those who did give it unto them, as an authority infallible; we upon no lesse good ground receive (as authentical and secure from error, both in faith and manners) our Vulgar Translation, which we receive upon the infallible authority of the Church, An infalliblity as well grounded as theirs who received first the true Original Scriptures, as I proved Numbers 32.33. But of this infallibility I am to treat at large Chapter 4. If Isidor Clarins in any one title importing faith or manners, differs from what [Page 251] we receive, upon this infallible authority, we have nothing to do with him; what you object against us for the different editions of Sixtus and Clement hath bin answered by many, and very fully by that famous book called Charitie Maintained, written against Potter, see it Part. 2. Cap. 6. Numb. 3. Where, by authentical Testimonies of persons beyond all exceptions, is shewed that the decree of Sixtus about his edition, was never promulgated, and that he himselfe, had declared diverse things to have crept in which needed a second review, and that the whole work should be re-examined though he could never do it, being prevented by death. The very self same is told you distinctly in the Preface to our Vulgar Edition: but I cited the former book, because of his severall proofs, and because Chillingworth (who with so much applause of many) answered this book, doth not return one word to disprove his Adversaries most satisfactory answer. All your other arguments end in the biting of a flea.
37. Next you object two places of S. Austin. But Sir you have given me leave to have no more to do with the Fathers Authority. Councils you also labour to discredit in the highest degree, for you make them like false witnesses, in matters concerning the salvation of infinite people, to betray their own falsity, in affirming things directly contradictory. You must not say, but prove by S. Austin, and other good Authors, that two lawful Councils, lawfully approved, have taught contrary opinions in matter of Faith, otherwise you only deceive the people, which knoweth not which Councils were lawful, which not. Would you make us believe S. Austin thought the Council of Ariminum a lawful Council? Do you your self hold it so? Did not he know it was not so? as wel as you. After all then you cannot shew which is your prime Principle. That, take away the infallibility of the Church, you can find infallible means by Scripture only to decide all Controversies; for by Scripture only it is a plain impossibility [Page 252] to decide which Scriptures be the true word of God, which not, As also which be corrupted which be not, and which be the true original Copies of the true Books, which be not, This is a true convincing argument.
38. Another argument is, that there be many Controversies (and may be yet many more) the decision of which is necessary to Salvation, and yet they cannot be decided by Scripture only, and consequently some other infallible Judge (to wit the Church) is necessary for the infallible decision of these points. Your second answer still is, that the decisions of all such Controversies are plainly set down in Scripture, which I have at large shewed in the beginning of this Chapter, to be false, and now I go to shew it further by specifying divers of these Controversies in particular.
Of my 8th. Number.39. The first of these Controversies is about the necessity of not working upon the Sunday. You dare not say that he shall be saved who doth weekly work, and resolveth to work upon the Sunday, without any necessity. You must then affirm, that to abstain from working upon that day, is a point necessary to Salvation. Now I ask where this necessary point is plainly set down in Scripture? And I presse you to give me, as clear Texts to prove this, as I cited at large to prove that we must not now work on Saturdayes. You are to shew Texts in which this point is plainly set down, for these Texts I called. In place of these Texts you bring your own discourses. Now according to your own opinion that Councils, though general, in their discourses out of Scripture, may be forsaken by him who judgeth such discourses nothing so well grounded in the Text, as the discourses for the contrary opinion are grounded in other Texts. Hence you must needs give the Sabbatharians, leave to reject these your discourses with far greater reason then you reject the discourses of Councils. Whence then shall we have an infallible decision of this Controversie. Your own Doctor [Page 253] Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy. Pag. 100. writeth thus, For that (keeping of the Sunday) in the New Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the primitive Disciples. At Geneva they were once upon changing Sundayes Feast into Thursday, to have shown their Christian Liberty. If this were plainly set down in Scripture would not these your illuminated Brethren see it as well as you. And you so often called upon for a plain Text, instead of bringing infallible Texts, bring nothing but a discourse of your own, very fallible, and proving nothing but a possibility of such a change, To the far stronger Text, for still keeping the Sabboth, you say not a word. My argument then as yet hath nothing like a satisfactory answer returned unto it.
40.Of my 9th. Number. The second Controversie which I said could not clearly be decided by Scripture is about our lawful eating or not eating of that which is strangled, clearly forbidden Act. 15. But because there may be some reasons alledged why this precept now obligeth no longer (though I might insist that we seek for Texts and not for reasons) I presse this argument no further, having so great plenty of far more pressing arguments.
41.Of my 10th. Number. A third Controversie not clearly decided for you by Scripture, I briefly touched concerning the holding the King, Head of the Church, whom you according to plain Scripture. determine to be still the Head of the Church, though others hold it very far from being plain Scripture. This Controversie must needs highly import, that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head, by whom they are to be governed. This point was before evident Scripture, now it is no longer evident Scripture. Your answer is first. What is infallibly decided by Scripture, will ever be so, although we do not always find it. Sir, if you mean what is infallibly decided by evident Scripture, is not alwayes to be found, it is manifestly false. This being against the very Nature [Page 254] of that which is evident when it is supposed to stand laid wide open before our eyes in the same words which made it before evident Scripture. You add, Secondly, That you doe not say every point is Infallibly decided by Scripture, because it is not at all decided? Sir, Is not this a necessary point, and be not these your own words? All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, and again, What is not plainly set down in Scripture is hereby understood not to be necessary. Grant these Principles false and the cause is mine. If they be true, this point being necessary, must also be plainly decided by clear Scripture. And when you aske me whether it be determined in Scripture that the Pope is head of the Church? You forget that we do not teach (as you do) that all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture, but we teach the quite contrary. You that hold that on the one side the King is head of the Church, and on the other side that all points necessary to Salvation be plainly set down in Scripture, you (I say) must shew me plain Scripture for what you say in a point so necessary, as it is for so many millions to know so capital a point as their head is. If for such a point as this (to which so many were obliged to swear) you have no plain Text of Scripture, I pray tell us no more hereafter, that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture. I adde that either you must be far from having any evident Text for this point in Scripture, or your most illuminated Calvin could not see that which was evident, for he writing on the 7th of Amos, saith of our English Church. They were blasphemous when they called him (Henry the Eighth) chief Head of the Church under Christ.
Of my 11th. and 12th. Numb.42. A fourth Controversie not decidable by any clear Text of Scripture is, which be the true Books of Scripture, which not, about which we still differ mainly. And it is evident no Text can decide this Controversie: Of this in general I have spoken fully. That for which I repeated it over again is to presse particularly the impossibility that [Page 255] there is to prove by Scripture (against the Manicheans) that St. Matthew his Gospel is the true uncorrupted Word of God. That it is impossible to know it to be Saint Mathewes Gospel you your self confess, holding it in plain termes a point of no necessitie to believe this; yet sure I am that your learned Brethren in their conference at Ratisbone, dared not to deny that it was an Article of faith to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel to have be [...]n written by Saint Matthew. And I believe your own Brethren will be scandalized at this your Opinion. But before you can goe forward, to shew it impossible to prove by Scripture that Saint Matthewes Gospel is the same uncorrupted Word of God, I am necessitated to Answer what ye Object by the way.
43. You say then first, That if the Church were infallible Judge of all Canonical Books, yet would it not follow from hence, that it should be infallible Iudge in all points of Faith, unless causally, for we might suppose more assurance to the Church in this particular then in other cases. Is it so good Sir? Can you suppose a point, upon which all depends, to be held by all as infallibly true, without shewing such a point to be clearly contained in Scripture? Why this spoils all. Your onely shift, to avoid the necessitie of an infallible Church, is still to say, that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture, and that if any point be not plainly set down in Scripture, it hereby appeareth not to be necessary. And will you now suppose this most necessary point of all points, which is not clearly set down in Scripture, to be admitted with infallible assent upon the only authority of the Church? That we are universally to hear the Church hath many pregnant places in Scripture, as I shall shew at large, C 4. But that we are to learn this one point, and none but this onely, from the infallible authority of the Church, hath no colour nor shadow of Scripture, or any thing like Scripture. You must therefore ground this your answer not upon Scripture, but upon [Page 256] Reason. Now the Reason upon which you reject the Church from being an infallible Judge of Controversies, is because there is no necessity of such a Judge, since the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished. And for this onely Reason (without any Text) you put the Churches infallibility to expire and give up the Ghost at the finishing the Canon of the Scripture. Now if the reason for which you discard the Churches infallibility, in other points, be this, that other points are cleared sufficiently by Scripture: Then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may more assuredly suppose the Church to be infallible, but that this one point cannot be sufficiently cleared by Scripture; and that therefore only there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the infallible authority of a Church, undoubtedly infallible in this prime point, which point causally brings forth all others. This discourse being evidently deduced out of your own prime principles, I pray mark two things which I am going to say. The first is, that this your answer overthroweth utterly that main ground of yours, That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture, For no point is more necessary then this without which there is no coming to the beliefe of any thing in Scripture, and yet this point is neither plainly nor obscurely set down in Scripture, unles it be where we are Universally sent to the Church for learning other points as well as this.
44. The Second thing I would have marked is, that you utterly overthrow that principle which is the ground-work of your faith. For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the infallibility of a Church, for as much as concerns this one point in particular, because this one point in particular is lesse clear in Scripture then any other necessary point; that grand principle of yours evidently appeareth false (though you speak it for your second answer so close after the other) That the Canonical Books bear witnesse of themselves, they carry their own light, which [Page 257] we may see them by this as we see the Sunne by his own Light. How is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Churches Authority as infallible in this particular point, because it can lesse be cleared by Scripture then other points, and yet on the other side, this point of all other points, hath this particular priviledge to be so manifest, That it beareth witnesse of its own selfe, that it carrieth its own Light with it, and such a conspicuous Light, that we may see this Verity by it, as we see the Sun by its own Light. But how vain this Ground is, upon which all must be supported, I have shewed largely from the 26. Number unto the 30th. As for your Dilemma, I have broken the Horns of it, Numb. 31.32, 33. And what you further say about Saint Hierom is answered, Numb. 27. And as for Bellarmine, if you had cited him in the very self same Treatise in that place where he speaketh of the Machabees in particular, (to wit, Lib. 1. Cap. 1. fine) He would have answered your Argument just as I answer it in that place. And note I pray by the way what you find, to wit, That the Fathers of the Council of Carthage acknowledged the Machabees for true Scripture. Now if these Fathers were of your Religion, then you must make them agree with you in your prime Principles upon which you receive all Scriptures as Gods infallible Word, because by their own light every Book is seen to be Canonical, as we see the Sun by its own light; Therefore according to you, these Fathers, did, by this light se these books of the Macha. to be canonical, by a light sufficient to an infallibility. This must therfore be infallibly true, & yet your Church denies it; nay you must say you cānot se this light you say is so clear.
45. And I pray now aske me (as you doe) How I see Light? I Answer, with such eyes as other men have, Who can see it as well as I. It hath little judiciousnesse in it, (pardon your owne words) to say that a thing is as visible as Light, and as apparent as the [Page 258] first principles, and yet even at the very self same time to say the most irradiated understandings of Saint Austin, of the whole Council of Carthage, of Saint Hierom, of Luther, of their own selves; see by this Light, and by this prime Principle quite opposite Verities. But of this see yet more in my 27. Number. As for the infallibility of the Church, I do not prove it first by Scripture, but as I have told you Numb. 30.31, 32, 33. About believing Saint Matthewes Gospel to have been written by him; I have said enough, Numb. 42.
46. At last I have forced a passage to my intended argument about Saint Matthews Gospel, which I boldly say cannot possibly, by your principles, ever come to be believed, with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted Word. The Marcionists, the Cerdonists, the Manicheans, do deny (and others may come to deny) the Gospel of Saint Matthew to be Gods true Word. This Controversie (as all others) according to you must be ended by Scripture onely. But that is impossible, for the Scripture, doth not so much as touch in one word this Controversie. Therefore it is false that the Scripture doth plainly set down all necessary points, without you will say it is not necessary to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel. Here you cannot fly to a Light as clear as the Sun shewing this Verity, for your own doctrine is that Translations are onely so far Gods Word as they agree with the Originals, as we have seen, Numb. 34.35. But we have onely Translations of Saint Matthews Gospel, and no Original copy at all; Therefore it is impossible for us (in your Principles) to know how far Saint Mattthews Gospel is Gods Word, because it is impossible to know how far it agreeth with the Originals. Perhaps whole Chapters are left out, perhaps divers things here and there put in, or altered, for it is uncertain who the Translator was, and of what skill, or honesty. The Church you confess (in your first answer) doth not certifie us; Ergo, this Answer is no Answer. [Page 259] For yet, you doe not shew, how we are certified of this truth, That this is the true uncorrupted Gospel of Saint Matthew. Secondly, you would tax us for saying that no one of the Antients conceived this Gospel to be written in Greek. You might easily understand our meaning to be that no one of them can be produced as a witnesse, so much as weakly moving us to believe this. For their Testimony (who did not write at all, or whose writings have perished) is no kind of Testimony, no more then if there never had been such men. You adde that it is not certainly true that there is not a copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world. Good Sir, in what year of our Lord, was it that I did say, that this was certainly true [...] Did not I say so this very last year, which was above twelve hundred years since Saint Jeroms time. If there were one Hebrew copy then, what is that to our purpose now? Can we go and confer our Translations of Saint Matthew, and see how far they agree with that Original copy which St. Jerom in his dayes did see in one only place of the world? Shew me so much as one Hebrew copy now extant in the whole world of sufficient credit to ground an infallible assent. If after more then a thousand years loss of all Original copies, Munster, or any other private man, obtrude us an Hebrew Original, which hath lain all this while, God knowes where; by what Evidence will that appear Gods infallible and uncorrupted Word: All your shifts will not here help you.
48. You would shift first by asking how the Latine Interpretation came to be Authentique. I Answer, Because it was accepted for authentique, and thus declared to be so by the Church, which Church when she admitted it, was fully satisfied that it agreed with the Original. And this she knew by Tradition from the Church of former Ages. This Tradition doth not certifie you because you hold it fallible. And therefore most certainly I certifie you that you will never believe Saint Matthewes Gospel [Page 260] with an infallible assent until you believe the Church infallible in her traditions. Your second shift is, this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek. Good Sir, tell me whether onely possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent. And here give me leave by the way to shew you once more the evident unevidence which is in that light by which you see Saint Lukes Gospel (for example) to be Gods true word, and so of all other Scriptures. The Greek Copy of Saint Luke, you see as evidently as the Sun to be Gods true Word by reading of it, and yet this great Evidence is so little different from that Evident inevidence, (which you call a Possibilitie) that Saint Matthews Greek Copy is Gods true and uncorrupted Word, that you cannot see (with your irradiated understanding) whether this inevidence be not to the full as good as that Evidence, and that it may not as well ground an infallible assent as that. Again, how come you to hold it a meer Possibility that Saint Matthews Gospel was written in Greek; for if the Greek Text of Saint Matthew be as truly Original as that of Saint Luke, your irradiated understanding must needs by its Light, see it to be Gods Word, as well as you see the Sun by its Light; why then do you venture no further then to esteem it a possibilitie. Is it a mere possibilitie that St. Lukes Gospel is Gods uncorrupted word? Now let us see how slender your Conjecture is (though I confess it to be better in my judgement, then the light manifesting to you infallibly the truth of Saint Lukes Gospel:) Let us see, I say how slender your Conjecture is to prove that possibly Saint Matthews Gospel might be written first in Greek, because the Greek Copy interpreteth the Hebrew word, Emmanuel; which if it were written in Hebrew, needed not any interpretation. A pittiful weak Conjecture. And this Dart is no sooner raised above your head with weak hand, but it falls with a strong hand, upon your head again. The Greek Copy translateth Hebrew words, therefore [Page 261] (say you) it is no Translation, but it is an Original. Sir, it is manifest that Translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew words first, and then the Translation of it. So Genesis 31.48. Galaad, id est, tumulus testis. Galaad, that is, the witnesse heap. And Gen. 35.18. Benoni, id est, filius doloris mei. Benjamin, id filius dextrae. And Exod. 12. Phase, id est, transitus. And Exodus 26. Manhu, quod significat quid est hoe. By these and divers such places you see how familiarly Translatours tell you the Hebrew word, and then the Interpretation of it. No prophane mean authoritie would upon so slight a conjecture as this is, be rejected and contradicted. Much lesse if he made himself an eye-witnesse of what he said. Yet you reject Saint Jerom, though he saith he did see a copy of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes, and you reject him though all the Fathers writings extant stand on his side, and this upon a most slender conjecture of your own, which would have made another man more wisely conjecture the quite contrary, and say, this copy Translateth, Ergo, it is a Translation. Whence it evidently appears how little you care either for the single, or for the unanimous consent of Eminent Fathers. But this being a point onely to bee tried by the Testimony of Antiquitie, your Cause is lost without some good Authours can be found for you. Your third shift is in place of giving a Solution to make an Objection, asking, Why our Latine Translation was made Authentique, if the Church had made the Greeke Authentique?
I Answer, that I know of no body who told you, That the Greeke Translation was made Authentique by the Church. Neither Greeke nor Latine can be Authentique but by the Church, because the Hebrew Original being lost, we cannot know how farre either Greek or Latine Translation agreeth with the Original, but by the infallible Tradition of the Church, you, who [Page 262] reject this, cannot know possibly how far translations be Gods uncorrupted word, for (as you say) they are only so far Gods uncorrupted Word as they agree with the Original; But you know not how far they agree with the Original. Ergo you know not how far they be Gods word. Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the Harmony with the other Gospels. Sir If any man intended to make a supposititious Gospel; do you not think he would take care, not to contradict the others. But what harmony can there be found in these many things related by Saint Matthew, and not related at all by any others? Yea, one of the greatest difficulties against Saint Matthews Gospel is to shew that it exactly agreeth with other Scriptures from the beginning to the ending. And to be the briefer I will onely instance in some places of the beginning and ending omitting all the rest. In the very first Chapter Saint Matthew tells us that Ioram did beget Ozias; And yet out of the fourth Book of Kings (which your Bible is pleased to call the Second Book) it is manifest that Ioram begat Ochozias C. 8. And that Ochozias did beget Ioas, C. 11. And that Ioas begat Amasias, C. 12. and this Amasias begat Azarias C. 14. who is called here in Saint Matthew, Ozias. I ask then how cometh Saint Matthew to say Ioas begat Ozias, who was born three Generations after him. And being that these three Generations hapned between the time of David, and the Captivity of Babylon, they beeing added to the other 14 Generations doe make them to be seaventeen. How then is it true which Saint Matthew saith verse 17. that all Generations from David until the carrying away into Babilon are fourteen. For all these Generations were Seventeen. Again he saith, there were fourteen Generations from Abraham to David, and (besides the fourteen now mentioned) that there were fourteen more Generations from the carrying away into Babylon until Christ. Count now thrice fourteen Generations, and they in all will make fourty two. But I pray now take [Page 263] your fingers, and count all the Generations specified in Saint Matthew, and you shall find them to be only fourty one. A wonderful exceeding great difficulty. And this for the beginning. Now towards the end of Saint Matthew see the Twenty seven Chapter v. 9. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the Prophet Jeremy; Read all the Prophet Jeremy and he hath no such matter in him. What Harmony appeareth here? Indeed in the Prophet Zachary (C. 11.) there is in substance what Saint Matthew said in his former Chapter about the denial of Christ by Saint Peter, how much do Interpreters sweat to reconcile what Saint Matthew saith with that which other Evangilists say, which seem to differ in very many circumstances. No less, yea far greater difficulty is it, to make all that Saint Matthew saith in his last Chapter concerning some Circumstances of the Resurrection of Christ, as the attentive Reader may easily see. Now I pray tell me if it be not a plain Paradox to say that the agreeing of Saint Matthew with other Scriptures is so apparent, that even from hence a man may know his Gospel to be infallibly Gods word, whereas the apparent disagreeing bringeth most vast difficulties, as I have shewed. Your fifth and last shift is, That all the people do fixe their faith upon that which is interpreted and not upon the Interpretation. If you do so, then for any thing you know, you may fixe your faith upon a Lye: for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the Interpreter be Gods Word, or the Interpreters own word? Especially when we know not who this Interpreter was, how skilful, how faithful, how true a Copy he used? How know you that this translator doth not convey his own phansies in place of Gods Word? Do you know it because your fancy also tells you that this is Gods Word, then thus we may have a double phantasticall assurance, and nothing else. This you are forced to hold sufficient, yet how doth this agree with your owne words, Translations are only so far Gods Words as they agree with the Originals, you [Page 264] cannot resolve your faith into the Original never proposed unto you, into the Translation you say you do not resolve it, yet you resolve it into the written word. What written word is that, which is neither Translation nor Original? This I ask and this you are bound to tell me, being your very main Position is that all you believe is resolv'd in to the written words. If the Illumination of the Spirit can tell you Gods word without any certain assured conveighing means, you must needs be a prophet, you must needs have far more then you will allow to the Church. You must needs know which of those so many Greek Copies, is the only true one. And by the like illumination of the Spirit any clown neither understanding Latine, Greek or Hebrew, will be able infallibly to know which English Translation is Gods true Word. And if you say he cannot because he cannot confer it with the Original, he will truly tell you that he can confer it with the Original, as much as you can confer any Translation of S. Matthew with the Original, which not being Extant in the whole World can no more be looked upon by you who know Hebrew, then by him. To other Translations you give but humane credit, such as he giveth to the English Translation.
Now after you have given to every one of your own any Illumination of Spirit sufficient to know infallibly Gods Word without having any better conveyance, then a humane Translation, you (very judiciously) deny any such Illumination to the Church, because she erred in Translating Ipsa for ipsum. It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be Translated Ipsum, how know you the Church followed the false Hebrew Copy? How many most grave and most ancient Fathers have also read Ipsa. And it was a loud lye of Kemnitius to say the contrary. See the D [...]way Annotations Gen. 3. V. 15. And Bellarm. l. 2. de verbo Dei, Cap. 12. And if you ask why the Greek was not made infallible by the Church as well as the Latine? I answer, we have her declaration that the Latin Vulgar [Page 265] is Authentique, and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners; when the Church shall declare as much of the Greek, that may then be believed Authentique; if both be Authentique upon the Churches Declaration, yet you, who believe her Declarations to be fallible, will still have a onely fallible ground for that assent which you give to Saint Matthews Gospel. So that all your shifts fail you in this important point of Faith towards a whole Gospel. All that you prove concerning other points debated between us out of Holy Fathers, since they find so little credit with you) after their Authoritie is demonstrated to stand for such or such a point) are not to be insisted upon until you esteem them more.
49. I come then to what you say to my 13. Number,Of my 13th. Number. where I Object Luthers not seeing the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint James to be Canonical by their own light. Your first answer is, That a Negative Argument from one is not cogent, for it followeth not he did not see, therefore he could not see it? Sir, in our case a Negative Argument is a strong proof, and as strong an one as this. I doe not see (endeavouring to see, and having good eyes wide open) a light as visible by its light, as the Sun by his light: Ergo, there is no such light standing before me. You will grant Luthers Eyes as good as your own, his Understanding as Irradiated as your own; the Apocalyps stood before his eyes as clearly as yours, what should hinder him from seeing it, and make you see it? The light is the same, the Proposition of it the same, your eyes or understanding no better, nor more assisted. Secondly, you answer that hence we see you do not follow him in all things blindly. Sir, the Question is here, who is blind, and truly blind. For you say that a light, no lesse visible by it self then the Sun [...] is, stands before both your eyes in the reading of the Apocal. and yet the one believeth as truly as he believeth any thing that he seeth this light, the other will venture his salvation that he seeth it not, for, in the same book of Apocalyps last Chap. verse 1. it is [Page 266] said. If any man shall take away from the words of this Prophesie, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life. Luther took all the book away; you hold it all Scripture, and yet him a Saint. You goe on, and adde that the Apocalyps and other Books also have been doubted of. But do you not mark the more doubt there hath been of them, the more evident it is that they most ungroundedly be affirmed by you to carry their own light by which they may be seen, as we see the Sun by his own light. Again, being you neither agree with us in the Canon of the Scripture, nor with your own Brethren, what reason have you to obtrude a Canon of your own coyning to us for Judge of all Controversies, you not agreeing nor knowing how many books make up the true Canon, and all agreeing that divers books of the true Canon be quite lost? Where shall we find this our Judge? Among us (after the Church Delaration was notified concerning the receiving of any book for Canonical) you will never find it doubted of by any true Catholiques. You are mistaken, if you think Saint Jerom held the Macchabees not to be Canonical after the definition of the Council of Carthage. It was before that Council that he writ what he writ. Concerning the rest you adde out of Saint Austin, I would say more if you esteemed the Fathers more, what you add after that, hath already been answered.
[...] 14th. [...]50. In my 14. Num. for a further proof that the Scripture alone cannot decide all controversies, I did and do still insist upon this argument, that almost all Controversies do arise about the true sense of such or such a Text in Scripture. The sense is the kernel, the life, the Soul of the text; misse in this, misse in all. And yet about this sense greatest wits vastly differ in many points necessary to Salvation, and consequently many misse the true sense to their eternall damnation. This book of the Scripture, by it self alone could never yet end these differences; Therefore if God had left us no other [Page 267] means to end our differences, but this Book, about the true understanding of which all our differences arise, he should have no better provided for our unity (even in points necessary to Salvation) then that Law-maker, who should leave his Common-wealth a Book of Laws to end all their Controversies in Law, about the meaning of which Book, he knew all the cheifest Controversies would still arise. This is indeed a repetition of what I said, but it is a repetition of what you have not yet answered. For against your first answer it is apparent that there is not only a necessity of a judge different from Scripture, to declare unto us, which books be the true and uncorrupted word of God; but there is also a main necessity of such a judge to know the undoubted meaning of Gods undoubted Word, about which there be far more controversies in points necessary to Salvation. And though, in your second answer, you tell us, that all points necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, yet I have plainly proved the contrary Chap. 3 Num. 200. And my discourse (Contrary to your 3. Answer) is affectual, for in points necessary to Salvation, to be believed with divine faith, we must have an infallible authority to rely on, for that faith, which relieth upon a fallible authority, cannot be an infallible assent. And again if we have not full security of this infallible authority, we cannot assent unto it with an assent infallible, to which we being obliged by God, God also must have furnished us of full security to know this authority to be infallible, as I have shewed him to do. And yet again, that this infallible authority, so well secured is invested in the Church appeareth sufficiently by this, that the Scriptures not assisting us in the infallible knowledge of their own true sense, in points necessary to be believed with infallible faith, we must be assisted to this infallible knowledge by som other infallible means (for fallible will not do the deed.) No other infallible means can, with any shadow of probability, be said given [Page 268] unto us, but the infallible authority of the Church▪ Therefore her authority must be infallible, as shall at large be proved in the next Chapter, and then (in the next after that) I will shew that this infallible Church is the Roman, and none but the Roman.
51. Again, I said, that if Christ had intended the Book of Scriptures for the judge of all Controversies, the knowledge of this point being so primely necessary, must needs be according to your principles evidently set down in Scripture, in w [...] all points necessary to salvation are (as you say) evidently set down. You pretend here this point to be clear in Scripture, but I have largely shewed the contrary and answered your objection. And I retort it thus, that if God would have us in all controversies guided by the Scripture only he would clearly have said so in these Scripture yea he would have told us the true undoubted Canon of Scripture. This is now unknown to you: And we are sure diverse parts of this Canon are lost, what Scripture tels us we must be judged by only part of Scripture? I pray answer this.
Of my 14th. Number.52. Moreover I added that if God would have given us a Book for our Judge, he would never have given us for our Judge such a Book as the Scripture is, which very often speaketh obscurely, sometime so prophetically, that most would think it spoke of the present time, when it speaketh of the time to come, that it speaks 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. My adversarie to avoid this Argument, so mangleth the sense, that he may make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect by reporting them as if I should have said, If God had intended Scripture for our Judge, he would not have given us such a Book as Scriture. Which words taken without those particles, for our Iudge, seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture, [Page 269] but taken with those particles (which purposely were added, to make the sense of the writer appear) the sense can offend no man capable of sense. For what man of understanding would affectionately crie out of disrespect, if not of blasphemy against Scripture, if he should hear one say, if God had intended still the Scripture for sole Judge in all Law Controversies, he would never have given us such a Book as the Scripture is for our Iudge. Would any sober man let fall such a censure upon such an occasion? Is it not manifest that the Scripture may be a Book as perfect as can be for the intent for which God made it, and yet not be fit to decide all Controversies by it self alone, it never being intended for that end. It is sufficient that this Book provides an infallible means to judge them, by sending us to the Church for our Judge. They truly disgrace the Scripture, who will first make men believe that all necessary Controversies are plainly decided by Scripture alone, and that God intended the Scripture for the plain decision of them, and then, when it comes to the trial, are not able to shew any Text of Scripture, deciding many and most important Controversies: for, this is in effect to say, God performed very unsufficiently what he intended to do, by Scripture. If what I said gave you any advantage, shew it by disproving what I said.
53. First, you ask how these words are put together, so Prophetically, that most would think that the Scripture speaketh of the time present, when it speaketh of the time to come? I answer, that it was fit the old Testament should be Prophetical, and I intended nothing lesse then to blame Scripture. And yet I say, that when the Scripture useth such words as signifie to us a veritie present, as well as a veritie future, we (who have nothing but these words to direct us) cannot tell infallibly whether God intended by them to speak onely of what was present, or of what was to come. And so Gods meaning in all these places is obscure unto us. And if you can help us to any assured means of knowing [Page 70] infallibly the hidden sense of God, utter'd in this māner, you shall do more then any of your Doctors ever did. Secondly, whereas you think it little to the purpose of him, who is to shew in how doubtful terms the Scriptures sometimes expresse themselves, when they spoke so, that you cannot tell whether David speaketh of himself or of Christ, your judgement is very different from Candaris, that wise judicious man, who had charge of all the Treasure of the Queen of Aethiopia, (Acts 8.27.) He read Isaias, the clearest of all the Prophets concerning Christ, and he read a place as clearly speaking of Christ, as most places you can turn unto with all your skill, and yet when Philip said to him, Understandest thou what thou readest? He, who was so prudent, and so sincere a searcher of the Truth answered, How can I except some man should guide me? And then he asked of his guide, that, of which he most doubted; I pray thee of whom speaketh the Prophet this? of himself or of some other man? Had you been there you would have told him he had blamed Scripture as you tell me for the like cause. Who doubteth but Prophets should speak prophetically. And yet again, who doubteth but that this their speaking so, makes them to need a Guide & an Interpreter.
54. I do not think that among your own Clergie or Laitie, you are as much esteemed as he who spoke as fully of this point as I did: I mean Doctor Ieremy Taylor in his Discourse of the Liberty of Prophecying, Sect. 3. where he proveth the uncertaintie of Arguments from Scripture, By the many senses of Scripture, when the Grammatical sense is found out: for there is in very many Scriptures a double sense, a Literal and a Spiritual, and both these Senses are subdivided. For the Literal sense is either Natural or Figurative, and the Spiritual sometimes Allegorical, sometimes Anagogical, sometimes there are divers literal Senses in the same place; so he. Now it depends upon the secret intention of the Holy Ghost to have used these words in some one onely, or two, or more of these senses. Is there no difficultie [Page 271] think you in finding out so great a secret, and that infalliblie as we must do in points necessary to salvation? And if you say the sense is alwaies cleared out of some Text or other in such points, you say more then you can prove. Take for an example these four words: This is my Body, you must say they are spoken in a Figurative sense, and not in their Natural sense: shew this in a Figurative sense to be infallibly the true sense by any other clear Text, or else you shew not what you say. Two hundred several Interpretations have been given of these four words. Is this a sign that true sense is easily known, and known infallibly? Is not this about a point necessarie to salvation?
55. To shew further the difficulty there was to know the undoubted meaning of Scripture even in precepts, (which being precepts are damnably broken) I used this argument: the Scripture useth the Imperative Mood as well when it counsels as when it commands. What infallible means then have we to know what is recommended onely to us as a Counsel or Command, as a precept to be kept under pain of damnation; Instead of teaching me this means you say you cannot swallow this without chewing, because I suppose that there are Counsels of perfection above things of Command; whilest you chew this, do not you see that your teeth bite Saint Paul; who expresly supposeth with me, that there be counsels of perfections above things of Command. For (1 Cor. 7.25.) he saith. Concerning Virgins I have no Commandement of our Lord, yet I give Counsel. And Verse 38. He that giveth his daughter in marriage doth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better. How doth this agree with your strange Divinity, according to which we have done but our duty, and what we are obliged to do under a damnable sin, when we have done as much as we could. Is this true? Might not this man have given his daughter in marriage who doth not give her? He might have done so, and done well according to Saint Paul. According to you he is bound to do [Page 272] all that he could do. But he could have done better in not giving her to marriage, therefore according to you he was bound not to give her under pain of damnation. Here I must intreat you to mark the words of the Text you alledge against me, Luke 17. So likewise when you have done all those things which are commanded you; (he saith not which are onely commended by way of Council) say we are unprofitable servants, we have done what we ought to do, to wit, by an expresse Precept obliging under damnation. In one sense this man who hath not married his daughter, may truly say, I have done what I ought to do, not out of strict Obligation, binding under pain of Hell-fire; (for I might have done well in doing the contrarie,) but what I ought to do, out of more perfect charitie. To swallow this Apostolical Doctrine is far easier then to admit into ones mouth those words of yours. The Commandements of God are given to us according to the tenour of our abilitie in Adam. What evident Text teacheth this? I am sure Saint Iohn saith, Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandements. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his Commandments, is a lyar, and the truth is not in him, John 2. Therefore since Adams dayes God enabled us to keep his Commandements.
56. You go on as if I found fault with Scripture. I only find fault with those who affirm Scripture to have been intended by God for an end, to which I shew it never was intended. Because if it had been intended by God to teach us clearly all things necessarie to salvation (otherwise then by sending us to the Church, and by bidding us keep our received Traditions) it would have set the things down clearly and distinctly, and not have left these points to be picked out, one out of one book, another out of another, no man knoweth directly where; yea divers books contained not so much as one of these points, which you hold necessarie to salvation, especially in plain and clear terms. And those books which do contain [Page 273] such points do intermingle so many other lesse necessarie points, or points of doubtful necessitie, with those which are wholly necessarie (without ever telling us of this lesse or greater necessitie) that all the whole Bible must be very carefully, and very attentively read over (which is impossible, because divers whole Books of the Bible are lost) before a man can come to the infallible knowledge of such points as you will say are necessarie, which points you say are but few, and the Books of Scripture are many, and divers more have been written and quite lost; and how can we tell whether all these we have now, contain all points necessarie? For the most you pretend is, that in the whole Canon all points necessarie were delivered; we have not the whole Canon, but diverse books of it have perished; Therefore we have no assurance that the Scripture we have containeth all things necessarie. The Scriptures we have, make a book so big, that the far greater part of the world (taken up with so many necessarie affairs) cannot in a very long space of time read over this Book with any part of that exactnesse, which according to your own Principles, must be required to find out, which points be necessarie to salvation. For to do this, they must first read over the whole Canon, and yet divers books of it are lost, and not to be had, how shall they read them? Secondly, to have assurance that they have read over the whole Canon, they must read over such books as we hold to be part of the true Canon, to see whether they be so or no, and use such diligences as are necessarie for an infallible assurance. They must also note most accurately all places which may perhaps clearly deliver a necessarie point, when they shall have been conferred with other places, which perhaps be at the other end of the Bible, or may occur to me when I lesse observe any kind of connexion with what I read before. Besides this, for fear Translations (which are only so farre Gods Word as they agree with the Original) should be taken by me for Gods true Word; I must consult [Page 274] with the Original, and with the true Original, of which I cannot get an undoubted copy infallibly secured from corruption, Is it likely that God, who hath promised us a Way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it, would intend to lead us by a way having so many passages open to errour. These difficulties shew that God did not intend this Book to be our onely guide. His wisedome directs him to the best means to compasse his intention. Even our ordinarie wisedom (if we had an intention to set forth a writing to end all necessarie Controversies) would direct us to set down plainly and clearly in one place all those (few as you say) points necessarie to be believed. When God determined to set down all the Jewish Ceremonies, you see how fully, particularly, and clearly he setteth them down in Leviticus. Points of faith necessarie to salvation import incomparably more then points of meer Ceremonie. If then God had intended a Book, by which only he was resolved to deliver unto us all points necessary to salvation, these points (as you say) being but few, he would in some one part of these books have clearly set down these few points, a thousand times more importing then the points of Ceremonies. Many hold that the Epistles of Saint John were written after his Apocalyps, and so (by order of time) that they were the very last part of the Canon. And yet in the very last part (of this my last part) of the Canon, Saint Iohn saith, I had many things to write, but I will not with inke and pen write them. But I trust we shall see thee shortly, and we shall speak face to to face. No man can say that these many things which St. Iohn had to write, were things unnecessarie; wherfore many necessary things may not be set down in the Canon. And yet the Canon is very compleat in order to its true end, and also in order to the ending of all Controversies by sending us to the Church for full instruction, as I have shewed. And it is apparently false which you say, that the Scripture doth give us everie particular point which is necessarie [Page 275] to be believed, as I have shewed in this Chapter. And whereas you adde secondly, That the Scripture giveth also many points not necessary, you mark not that the vast number of those points among which, here, and there (we are not assured where) the necessarie points are intermingled from the beginning of the Bible to the end, is a thing which would make any man far from being fully assured, that Gods intention was by this Book alone to decide all Controversies about points onely necessarie, which might far more easily for our capacitie, have been done in some one Chapter of some one of these Books.
57. After this you urge that our Church hath not decided all necessary Controversies. Sir, Our Doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed when any necessity shall require it or the declaration of this point concern our Salvation. Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of those points you speak of. If circumstances happen that Salvation cannot be had without their decision, they will then be decided. If you acknowledge a real necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of those points then by your own principles you are bound to say that they are plainly set down in Scripture. And I am sure our Church hath determined that we are obliged to believe all Scripture with an undoubtful beliefe, either you must say these points are not necessary, and then all your arguments fall of themselves, or else you must say these be plainly set down in Scripture, and then we are by our Church obliged to believe them with divine faith. I adde that our whole Church teacheth the definitions of Councils confirmed, to be infallible. Submit to this Judge appointed by God, who did bid us hear the Church, and you shall find her definitions not to leave you ignorant of what is necessary for you to know. To cavil at her, you will pretend that to be necessary which you will say the next moment is unnecessary.
[Page 276]58. But to shew you further that the Scripture is not clear in all points necessary to Salvation, with such claritie as is necessary to put an end effectually to all controversies, I take a point or two set down with full as great clarity as divers other points can be shew'd to be set down; which other points, you do affirme both to be necessary to Salvation, and also to be set down clear enough, to decide the Controversie for you; though they be set down with no greater claritie then those points which I will specifie; and which you will say be not set down clear enough to decide the Controversie for us: whence the inconsequence of your proceedings will be made evident, whilest all shall see, that you will pretend such a degree of clarity in the Texts which you use to alledge for such points, to be sufficient to decide them for you, and by and by they shall see again a higher degree of clarity rejected by you as unsufficient to decide a point against you. To prove this the first point I specifie is of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. The text in your own Bible speaketh thus, James 5.14. Is any sick among you, let him call for the Elders (Priests) of the Church. And let them pray over him anointing him with oyle in the name of our Lord. And the prayer of the faithfull shall save the sick; And the Lord shall rais him up. And if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him. What imports a dying man more then to have that applied to him in due manner by which he may be secured (upon the word of a God) that, if he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him? And yet you cry superstition, superstition. If a Priest be called for to pray over a sick man, and to anoint him with oile, which is that Visible Act to which invisible grace, justifiing from sinne, is promised in those words, And if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. How clear this place is, appeares by the very letter, in which we have all we desire to make a Sacrament. A Visible signe of invisible grace. You will say, this clarity is not in a degree sufficient to make a man believe [Page 277] with divine faith, that this Unction of anointing is a Sacrament, or a Visible signe of invisible Grace. And (so soon as I shall ask) you will tell me that your grand fundamental and Capital point, All things necessarie to Salvation are clearly set down in Scripture, is a point delivered in Scripture by Texts, having a sufficient degree of clarity to make it an Article to be believed with a divine faith; I call for those Texts, and you do give them as well as you can, (as I suppose) I examine them all in this Chapter (from my eighth Number to my fifteenth) and I dare Venture my life that no wise conscionable man will say that any one of those texts, or all put together, doe with as great a degree of claritie affirm All things necessarie to Salvation to be plainly set down in Scripture alone, as this text I alledged affirmeth this Sacrament of Anointing. But this, you say, is not affirmed with a degree of Clarity sufficient to decide the Controversie for us, and to ground an infallible belief of this point, Therefore that degree of Clarity is not sufficient to decide in your behalf that capital Controversie, and to ground an infallible beliefe of it. And yet for many other points (which I specified in the beginning of this Chapter) you have not so much Scripture as you have for this prime point, though I did chuse this for my instance, because I had examined all your texts. You give two answers to this Objection. The first is, that, if the Scripture hath decided this point for us, then the Scripture can judge and end Controversies. But Sir, doth it hence follow that it can end all necessary Controversies, because it can end this one Controversie? Again, is this Controversie by this Text ended? Doe not you still stand out in the contrarie opinion? This Text indeed might (as I said) seem in the impartial judgement of a prudent man, to say evidently that this anointing is a Sacrament, and sure I am that it saith it clearer then any Scripture you can bring for many points which you say are clearly decided by Scripture; yet we [Page 778] see by the experience which we have of you, and yours, that even this great degree of claritie in this Text will not serve to convince your judgments, whence it is manifestly inferred that a lesse degree of claritie (which notwithstanding is the highest, which can be found in many Texts that be the clearest alledgeable for many points necessary to salvation) will not effectually end the controversies about those points. And therefore there must be some other means to end them. Your Second Answer is flatly against the Text, for you say these words do only relate to the guift of healing in those daies: and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the Soul. If he hath committed sins they shall be forgiven him. I pray what Scripture have you to prove that the Elders in those daies did commonly cure all sick anointing them with oile? I am sure you can alledge nothing but some uncertain conjecture. I asked you also if you had one place of Scripture half as clear against this Sacrament of anointing, as the Text I brought was clear for it? But you neither did nor could give me any.
59. The second point which I did chuse to prove that such Texts of Scripture, as are clearer then those Texts, which you can alledge for many necessarie points; for example clearer then any Text for the Sunday, or baptizing children, is (notwithstanding this greater degree of claritie) rejected by you, as not sufficient to decide the controversie against you. Therefore I say, you most inconsequently proceed when you affirm far lesse clearer Texts sufficient to decide all Controversies. The Text brought by me, and rejected thus by you, was, This is my Body. Words expressed by four several Writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken Figuratively. And if you confer this place with the sixth of Saint Iohn, he hath these words, The bread that I will give is my flesh, and then (as it were purposely to shew he spoke not Figuratively) he added, My Flesh is meat indeed, [Page 279] and my Blood is drink indeed. Notwithstanding these so clear Texts you hold that the Scripture decideth this point against us with a decision sufficient to end the controversie, And yet for the contrarie all the Texts you can bring have not that degree of claritie which these Texts have against you. But you deny that these Texts decide against you. Therefore (to speak with tolerable consequence) you should acknowledge that lesse clear Texts cannot decide against us; yet being, by your owne main principle, bound 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 wch 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 [Page 280] 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 [Page 281] 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 [Page 282] 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 into the possession thereof even unto the Kingdome of God. Whereas your own Musculus (in Locis, Tit. de Baptismo) saith; The Fathers denied salvation to the Children who died without Baptisme, though their Parents were faithful. And by reason of this necessitie of Baptisme to the salvation of Infants, held so generally, Calvin himself saith, It was usual many Ages since, even almost from the beginning of the Church, that in danger of death Lay-people might baptize, Institut. (Lib. 4. Cap. 15. Numb. 20.) And to say the contrarie were to crosse all Antiquitie, as your Bilson confesseth in his Conference at Hampton Court. Hooker saith no lesse in his 5. book of Ecclesiast. Policy 62. A number of other learned Protestants are against your Opinion. But I say lesse of this point, for your own Opinion giveth me advantage enough to prove what I intend, that is, a point to be necessarie, and [Page 283] yet not plainly set down in Scripture; if you grant that there is a Precept necessary to be fulfilled by Parents that they procure their Children to be baptized. But why God should command this, the Children being as well saved without it (according to you) as with it, still remains to be proved. I stand upon your grant of this Precept as necessarily to be fulfilled by the Parents. This Precept is necessary to be fulfilled. This Precept is not plainly set down in Scripture. Therefore all necessarie points are not plainly set down in Scripture. Your answer will not here help you out, you say, Whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the Vertue of the Principle. But you cannot shew that this precept, given to the Parents, is necessarily inferred out of Scripture. Not out of the Institution of our Saviour, for he also instituted the Eucharist not necessarie for Infants not out of the substitution to Circumcision, for so it should not be necessarie to women, no nor to any but those of the Iewish Nation to whom onely Circumcision was given as necessarie. Is this a necessarie Consequence? Circumcision was necessarie for the male children, Ergo Baptisme is necessarie for male and female. You see it is not halfe true. Neither is that a necessarie Consequence which is drawne from the baptising of whole families: for first, as we read whole families were baptized, so we read that whole families believed. So Iohn. 4. verse 53. Himselfe believed and his whole family. Will you hence evidently infer that the little Children under yeares of discretion also believed, as you infer that they are to be baptized by a necessarie precept. Again this illation is far from being evident, for it is not evident that there be litle ones in every family alive, and those also under the age of discretion. In many families all the little ones that be alive are above seaven yeares old. There be many families of people newly married who have not yet any Children; There be many families of people who never had Children as those who are barren, [Page 284] Others have lost all they had by death. It is then no evident consequence, He baptized the whole family, therefore he baptized litle Infants, I insist not upon the Authorities I alledged out of Saint Austin. St Chrysost. because I deale with one who little regards authoritie confessed to be the Fathers.
62. Now Sir, to conclude this long Chapter, I will shew that I conclude this point (and so I doe all the former) just as you say I must conclude. For you say to me you must prove that those points were and ought to be determined by the Church upon necessitie of Salvation. This I prove by this argument. This point and all the former are necessarie to be believed with an infallible assent. But we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent, unlesse it be determined by an infallible authoritie; therefore we must find out an infallible authoritie which hath determined these points. The authoritie of the Scripture (as I have proved) hath not determined these points. We must therefore find out some other infallible authoritie upon whose determination we may be able to do, that which to be saved we must do, to wit, upon which we may be able to believe these points with an infallible assent: No such infallible Authoritie can be found on Earth, if we deny the Authoritie of the Church to be infallible. I conclude then that her Authoritie must needs be infallible.
The Fourth CHAPTER. The Church is this Judge. Her Authoritie Infallible.
NO better beginning can I give to this Chapter,Of my 17th. Number. then the very last Number of the last Chapter, which I must intreat my reader to note most carefully, so to observe the forcible deduction by which I prove the necessitie of a judge, different from Scripture, who must be infallible for the reason there assigned, and who can be no other then the Church. This proofe alone might serve the turn, yet I adde.
2. First those words Matthew 12.19 spoken to Saint Peter; vpon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; these words allow the Church a securitie from ever admitting any doctrin so pernitious that the gates of Hell may prevail against her. And this promise made to the Church is that which mainly makes to my purpose; Whether the church be built upon Saint Peter, and his Successors, or upon the faith of Saint Peter, is not the thing I cheifly here aim at. My aim is to find a Church built on a Rock so strong that no error shall ever overthrow it. And so I have nothing to do with your long disputation about Saint Peter. I am now secured the Church shall never be a Nest of Errors, Idolatrous, superstitious, wickedly assuming the authoritie of an infallible tribunall without sufficient warrant. All or any of these things would bring her to the gates of Hell, they being all damnable impieties. That, what is said of this infallibility of the Church, only concerns the Roman Church, I will shew in the next Chapter. Have patience until then or read that first; You being to say nothing against me [Page 286] untill you begin to say sixthly, That you have enough against me for saying the Church is secured from all damnable errors by this promise. For this maketh you think my meaning to be, that Christ doth not intend here to exempt the Church from all error but only damnable. But Sir my meaning in specifying her exemption from damnable errour was only that time to take for granted, that, which most of yours use to grant, and even thence to presse, your further, you grant the Church free from damnable errour, whence I have at least thus much that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church. And I have also that the whole Church, being thus by divine assistance secured from erring damnably, is secured from ever being destroyed by any damnable error, she is therefore alwayes to have such a visible existence as is necessarie to afford a guidance secured from erring damnable by it. Now by what Logick do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnable errour, therefore according to my doctrine shee is not secured from other errours? All you build, upon this consequence, falls to the ground. Going on I find you by the way quarelling with one of the Cardinall vertues, even Prudence her self, which you intimate then only to have place, when Religion is chosen by interest. I pray do you thinke in earnest that men cannot proceed prudently in the choise of their Religion? Then you conclude that all the force my former argument hath it hath from Scripture. Is not my argument the better for this against you, who professe to believe Scripture to be Gods undoubted word, independently of the authority of the Church, because it is clearly manifested to you, to be so by its light, as the Sun by his light. Is it not a convincing argument which is strengthened with an authoritie acknowledged so firme? Against a Heathen (untill I had proved Scripture to him) I would not use this argument.
4. Presently I find you again stumbling at the sense in [Page 287] which I took the word damnable, as if I should allow the following of the Church in other errours. No Sir, you cannot follow her in other errors, because she cannot go before you in any errour; not in any damnable errour, as your own selves teach, no nor in any other errour as in this very next argument is proved, if you mark the force of it.
5. The force then of my next Argument is this, God commandeth us to obey the Church and hear her; in obeying her and hearing her, we follow Gods Command. But no kind of errour, little, or great, can be incurred, by following Gods Command, therefore we can be lead into no kind of errour by following the Church. Again you your selves say it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour, though it be not a damnable errour. Wherefore if I can prove that we are obliged to follow the Church, I shall prove also that shee cannot guide us into any kind of errour. This I prove by that text Matthew 18. verse 18. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or a Heathen, Therefore meerly, and purely, for not hearing the Church, a man is to be held and truely, according to Gods judgment, deserving to be held, a publican or Heathen: but all we are obliged not to deserve to be held by Gods judgement, Publicans or heathens, Therefore all are obliged to hear the Church, being that meerly and purely for not hearing her, they are to be held, and deservingly held, according to Gods judgment, Publicans and Heathens, as is also further insinuated in the next verse, where it is said, this sentence shall be ratified in Heaven. Now if any man reply that we are to heare the Church so long as she swerveth not from Gods word; my answer is, that, to swerve from Gods word is to erre; but this text proveth she cannot erre. Ergo, it proveth that she cannot swerve from Gods word, and indeed, if she could, the meerly not hearing her, could not deserve, that a man should deserve to be accounted, according to Gods judgement, a Publican or Heathen. But you tell me this text is [Page 288] to be understood, not of matters of faith or unbelief, but of matters of trespasse between brother and brother, and refractoriness in the person. And that it respects excommunication by censure, in which also it may erre. Neither is a man bound to believe the censure is just, unless it appears to be so. This last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine, for the unanimous opinion of learned men is, That a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just, unless the contrary appears evident. See your own Doctors, Chillingworth, P. 308, N. 108. Hooker, P. 310, 311. N. 110. Laud, P. 226. And indeed you bring all to this, that, when all comes to all, you are the last judge, to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred, and not to the sentence of the Church, for you reserve to your selfe the last judgement of her sentence, to see whether it be just or no in your own private opinion. Sir, if the contrary be not evident, the Church (who is Superior) is to be followed, and obeyed. If the contrary be evident it is impossible such a superior as the Church is, assembled in a general Council should not mark that evidence, without we will call that evident, or not evident, which is for our present turn to call evident or not evident. That which is truly evident will of it selfe appear to be so at least to the most judicious, upright, and best instructed Prelates of the Church. And this is to be said according to human Reason, although they had no infallible promise of a more then humane assistance, from the Holy Ghost. Moreover Sir, let us if you please, not passe so farre as the Censure, but let us make a stay in the mere consideration only of the cause, for which the censure is given: that the cause is not hearing the Church; for this, and meerly for this only cause, according to the text, this man is (according to Gods judgement) deservedly to be held as a Publican or Heathen; and therefore, if for this act of not hearing the Church, the censure cometh to be after wards pronounced against him, that censure will be made good in Heaven, as the next [Page 289] verse clearly saith; Wherefore it is impossible that this Censure should be unjust, if he truly be guilty of not hearing the Church. It is true that a man may by false information, or some such way be judged to be guilty of not hearing the Church, when really he is not guilty, and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact, and thus Clave errante in mater of fact, the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven. But this is nothing to the purpose, for still he, who is truly guilty of not hearing the Church, is for that only fact, and meerly for that cause, to be held deservedly, according to Gods judgment, as a publican or Heathen. And so the Church cannot errour in denouncing Excommunication against such a person. And hence you see how truely miserable such a person is, and how it must needs be damnable unto him not to heare the Church, which not to hear, maketh a man to be held as a Publican or Heathen most deservedly, and according to Gods owne judgement. To hold himself not to deserve this punishment, is to hold against Scripture. You highly wrong Saint Athanasius, to say he heard not the Church, See my 9. Number.
These my Premisses being made good, it followeth clearly, that no man is secure in conscience who will not obey the Church. And hence again it followeth that this Church cannot erre, at least damnably, for else a Man might in Conscience be bound to follow a damnable errour. No, she cannot erre in an errour not damnable, because also it very true which you lately said, that so men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible. Hence that common doctrine of Antiquity That it is not possible to have a just cause to separate from the Church. And it cannot be said that any man separates himselfe not from the Church, but her errours; being she is secured from all errour; as appeareth manifestly by our obligation to hear her; you tell me that this text, obliging to [Page 290] hear the Church, is meant onely of trespasses betwixt Brother, and Brother, which trespasses are also to be told to every particular Church and to Severall Prelates, and therefore this place, say you, maketh nothing for the authoritty of the Vniversall Church. Sir, I grant particular trespasses are to be referr'd ro particular Prelats, and that the Church is not to be called to a general Counsel, for every private mans trespasses; singular private men are to be condemned by the particular Prelates of their particular Churches, proceeding according to the known Decrees and Orders of the Universal Church. If he clearly disobeyeth them thus proceeding, he disobeyeth the Universall Church. And for this act merely deserveth, according to Gods own judgement, to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen. So he who disobeyeth the particular Judge, judging according to the known Lawes of the Common-wealth, disobeyes the Common-wealth. And it is this not obeying the Church, and the not hearing her, which exaggerates the crime, whence you see the not hearing the particular Prelates, in so well ordered a Communitie as the Church is, may come to be commonly the self same crime with the not hearing of the Church. And because all such Prelates (when the contrary is not apparently manifest) are supposed to do their duty in giving sentence according to the known Decrees, Orders and Canons of the Universal Church, as we usually say, those who disobey the Judges disobey the Commonwealth: so generally speaking, those who disobey the Prelates of the particular Church, disobey the Universal Church, commanding them to proceed according to her Decrees, Definitions, and Canons. So that at last this disobedience is against Christ, and God himself, according to that which God said to Samuel, Lib. 1. Cap. 8. They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me. And Christ to his Disciples (the first Prelates of the Church.) He that despiseth you, despiseth [...]. And therefore Christ commanded the lawful Successours [Page 291] of Moses to be followed in what they delivered by publick authority, although they were wicked in their private lives, and many of them publickly did teach Errours though not by publick authoritie, or authorized by any Definition of that Seat, which private Errours Christ called the Leaven of the Pharisees, bidding his Apostles take heed of it; But concerning what that Seat did by publick Definition, Christ was so far from bidding people to take heed of it, that he in as general terms, as men speak when they would speak without any exception, Said to the whole promiscuous multitude, and also to his disciples; upon the Chair of Moses have setten the Scribes & Pharieses. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and doe; Mark these most ample words. All therefore whatsoever. O! will you say, what if they bid us do against the Scriptures; Why, this very saying of Christ sheweth they were secured from ever doing against the Scripture when they proceeded by way of defining with Publick authority. If you object, that they condemned our Saviour by publike authority, you have your Answer Number 9. Say I we must hear the Church, and because we must Universally hear her (for she doubtless hath to the full as much reason to be heard as the old Iewish Church then had) she must be confessed to have full assurance never to gainsay the Scripture. And as the Synagogues Authortity was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard onely in point of trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother, but was to be extended to All whatsoever they should order: So you can not (with out depressing the Authority of Christs Church who had a better Covenant established upon better promises Hebrews 8.6.) hinder her power from being extended to All whatsoever she shall Order. It must not therefore be confined only to trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother; But we must of necessity, for the reason now expressed, argue thus, That being she is to be heard, even in Controversies concerning trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother, [Page 292] much more is she to be heard in such trespasses as are committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church. Then or never he is to be complained of, And if this obstinacy in persevering in trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother deserveth that a Man should be held as a Publican and a Heathen, he incomparably more deserveth to be held so, who being commanded by the Church to desist from such pernicious opinions as ruine the Soules of his Brothers, and tear asunder the bowells of his Mother, still persists in his impious doctrine, and in that most infectious, and Soulmurthring crime of heresie the most heinous trespass against all our Brothers. Either such a crime or no crime is to be told the Church. Yea Saint Thomas calleth Schisme (of which Heresie is alwaies guilty) the highest sin against the whole Comunity of our brother hood. Now this crime is to be told first to the particular Prelats as soon as it is perceivd to be begining to creep like a canker, as the Scripture saith Heresie doth. If by this judgement of particular Prelats this crime be clearely found to be indeed Heresie, or a doctrine opposit to the known former definitions of the Church Universall, they are to excommunicate him who is pertinacious in this soul-murthering Crime, and this sentence is sure to be ratified in Heaven; because he who hath opposed in Doctrine the known Definitions of the Church, hath not heard nor obeyed her, for which onely fact (according to the clear sentence of Scripture) he deservedly is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen. Now if the Crime be not clearly against the known doctrine of the Universal Church, or not so evident against it, but many hold the contrary, the particular Prelates are bound to acquaint the head of the Church therewith. This supreme Prelate of the Church is bound to use the fulness of his authoritie to supresse the arising Heresie. He may forbid (if he feareth danger in the doctrine) that no such doctrine be published untill the Church shall [Page 293] think it fit. And then all must doe as Saint Paul saith, Hebr. 13. v. 27. Obey their Prelates. Thus far the power of the supreme Prelates is extended by the consent of the whole Church. He therefore that in this case obeyeth not, is guilty of not bearing the Church, which single crime maketh a man deservedly accounted as a Publican or Heathen. Now though the Supreme head of the Church be as infallible as Saint Peter was, yet if he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared Heresie, if it be so; or to be imbraced, if it be fitting, and proposed to all Christendome, then is the true time of calling a general Council, and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture. So though the Apostles were all infallible in their Doctrine yet they would not determine that grave question Acts 15. without calling a Council To consider of this word, in which there was made a great disputation; for this is necessarie for the fuller conviction of Hereticks, fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort, and further comfort of the whole Church, to see truth to triumph, upheld by the shoulders of all Christendom; what proceeding could be more sweet or more orderly; what exposition more agreable to this Text, Tell the Church, which denuntiation is to proceed by degrees from lower to higher Judges, as is there expressed. And Consequently when the sentence of the Highest tribunal of all is rejected, then or never, a man is deservedly to be accounted a Publican or a Heathen for not hearing the Church universall. She therefore under so great a penalty being alwayes to be heard, is secured from all kind of errour what soever, in matters of faith belonging to her tribunall, and so we must grant her to be infallible. I have then already found out such a judge, as I sought for, a judge in matters of faith, a living judge, and infallible (as you would have him) wih an infallibility excluding all errour in what soever he proposeth or decreeth, or all possibility of errour. For if it were possible for this judge to impose an errour, Christ [Page 294] could not possibly have declared it to be so heinous a crime not, to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all. He obliged all to obey and hear her, she therefore cannot lead us into an error. For as you truly say To be bound to assent to an errour is impossible. Our infallibility of knowledge concerning this point is as great as it is of those points, which are delivered by Scripture. And therefore you may stand up to my Creed, and that far more securely then stand out against such a Church; the not hearing of which is so great a crime. This Church is infallible and by manifest consequence only the Roman Church, as I shall demonstrate the next Chapter, Number 2.
7. Here by the way you tell me, That If I would go the right way in this Dispute, I should use another method, for whereas I would argue the Church to be this Judge, which we cannot safely disobey, I should rather shew a priori, That the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define, and therefore ought to be obeyed in all things whatsoever. But Sir, when I come to use this very method, I do foresee that it will so gald you, that you will cry out to have this burthensome, heavy argument cast upon the other shoulder, from which you now would have it shifted, to avoid the present trouble it causeth you, you shall see if it fall not out as I said, And that in this Chapter Numb. 52.
Of my 18th. Number.8. As for St. Austins Authority, I must here lay it aside as well as every where else, for fear I should lose my labour even after I have proved what I should.
9. You fly upon me for flying to that Text of Malachy 2.7. The Priests Lips shall keep Knowledge, and they shall require the Law from his Mouth, because he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Concerning the translation of which Text, I truly charge your Bible of corruption for reading thus, The Priests Lips should keep the Law, and they should seek the Law at his Mouth, Whereas all Originals speak clearly in the future tense, as the Hebrew doth, [Page 295] and also the Greek and Latin, which two Languages want not a subjunctive Mood; you ask, Is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome? I told you it was not. And I did say expresly that I added this Text to take away from you all wondering at us, for allowing that to be practised towards the Priests of the new Law (whose authority doubtlesse excells those of the old Law) which was practised towards the Priests of the old Law, in which those who searched for the true knowledge of the Law, were not directed to seek that knowledge by their own reading the Scriptures, but they were to search it by having recourse to the Priests, who never (universally) should fail at any time (mark that I speak by universal consent) to deliver false doctrine. As for private Priests they be like Private translations of the word of God; If what they deliver agree with the doctrine of the Church, their doctrine is infallible; not for their private delivery of it, but for the authority of their Church, as Translators are not to be believed for their authority but for their agreeing with the word of God. But there is a vast difference in this that the agreeing of the Translation with the Original is wonderful hard to know, especially when the Original it selfe cannot be known (by those who admit of an infallible Church) by any infallible knowledge. The argument of the Priests with the Publick Doctrine of the Church, is easily known, because her doctrine is so carefully published amongst all understanding men. And as it is easy to know that Homo doth truly signifie a man, for though one ignorant or malitious Fellow should say it signified a beast, yet the consent of all others would manifest that mans perversity. If a question were proposed in a matter of doubt in which their opinions varied, then men are to proceed as I just now declared Num. 9. And then when the cause should be decided by the High Priests he who would not not hear him was deservedly put to death Deutronomy. 17. I know you told me in another place that the Jewish [Page 296] Church erred. I did deny it, why? Did not they erre in condemning our Saviour. Yes, but then the Jewish Church erred not. The true high Priest (without whom there is no true Representative Church) erred not Caiphas, was not the true High Priest for another was lawfully declared to be so. This other true High Priest was Christ, who before his condemnation had sufficiently for a legall declaration proclaimed himself to be the true Messias, the true Anointed of our Lord. This true high Priest erred not: The true head of the Church not erring the Church cannot be said to erre. The true head of the Church defined not with the Council of Ariminumt Saint Athanasius was bound to follow the Church defining, which defined not in that Council, for the Head of the Church not defining with the body, the whole body, or Church, defined not. Therefore I say again you erre when you say, He should have been bound in Conscience by the censure of the Church to have been an Arrian. The Church, is the High Priest defining with a lawful general Council. The High Priest defining in a general Council erred not. I wonder you goe about also to justify the Translators proceedings, because who think the scope of the sacred writer doth bear it. Is not this to give Translators leave, together with their Translation to obtrude their glosse, and what they imagin the scope should be? Is this a sound Translation? Master Broughton one of the best skilled in Hebrew and Greek of your Church, did according to his great skill, give a truer censure of your Translation in his advertisement of corruption to your Bishops saying, That their publick Translation of Scriptures into English is such as it perverteth the Text of the old Testament in Eight hundred fourty eight places. And that it causeth Millions of Millions to reject the new Testament and to run to eternall flames. In what case then are they who take all that this Bible saith, for the undoubted word of God. When Tindal in the beginning of your Reformation▪ Translated Gods Word into English, he did reform it so like one [Page 297] of your great Reformers, that Bishop Tonstall noted no lesse then two thousand Corruptions in the New Testament only, Is not this good dealing in so short a volume; Is reading of these Translations called by you the Knowledge of Scripture; Chap. 1. Num. 3.
10. But to go on with my former discourse I did say,Of my 19th. Number. let any man aske the Priests of our Church what is the known doctrine of the Church and let him rest securely when he knows that. This you say is unreasonable, because the Priests are not infallible. But Sir, do you not marke that I ground their faith not upon the Priest but upon the Church Universal. Just as you say, you ground your faith not upon your Translations which only conveigh (as the Priests doe) the word of God to the searcher of it; yet we have incomparable more assurance of the agreement of what the Priests say to be the known doctrin of the Church, with the true doctrine of the Church; then you have of the agreement of your most corrupted (as we now shewed) Translations, with the true Word of God, which I explicated more largely in the beginning of the last Number: whence you will see, that when by fallible men we know that this word Homo a man signifieth a man and not a beast, that when I find in Scripture tha [...] God became Homo a man, I am infallibly assured he became a true man and not a beast Or a sea-man; so when by fallible men we know assuredly enough to make it evidently credible that this is the doctrine of the Church, we are assured by the Church that is true. For the Church is infallible as I am here proving, and secured from all errour which the Scripture (to those who rejects the Church) are not neither in their Translations as I have here shewed, nor in their Original, as I shewed in the last chap Numb. 35. And again although you were secured of the true Scripture: yet you are not secured of the true sense of it, as I shewed there Num. 50. And yet again a great many necessary Controversies are not contained in Scripture, as I shewed in the[Page 298] beginning and ending of that Chapter, which whosoever shall read will wonder with what confidence you ask, well, and are not all things necessary taught in the Scripture? I have also shewed you it is false, that what Authority the Church hath it hath from the Scripture. see Chap. 3. N. 30. 31. 32. yea immediatly before those places, I did (by eight arguments) shew that you have no infallible assurance of true Scripture if you deny the Churches infallibility. And whosoever shall but consider what I sayd in the last Number will have a ready answer to your question here Why doth your Church take away from the people the vse of Scripture. Sir why doth your English Church in place of Scripture give them such damnably corrupted Scriptures? These Corruptions take indeed from them the use of Scripture, it being impossible for them to know what is uncorrupted, in such a Chaos of corruptions. How miserably do you provide for the poor people? In our manner of requiring that law from the Priests (which your own Translation saith the people should do) there is no more danger then in your taking the signification of a word in Scripture from the Publick consent of all men. Again, we permit the use of Scripture in such languages as a general council can judge of, because they be sufficiently understood by the Church Universal. Vulgar translations are incomparably more easily corrupted and their Corruptions unknown unto her. The Latine language is known to most well bred men in learning, To such others as are sober, stayed, and peaceable spirits the Church denyeth not the use of such Translations as their lawful local Prelates hold secure. Farther use of Scripture is an abuse and we both see and fell the sad effects of it. You, who so carpt at going to the Priests of the Church for Knowledge of the law. You I say, if you mark it, send all your people to your own Priests, as you call them, neither rightly ordained, nor Canonically licensed to preach. For to bid them go to the English Bible, is to bid them go to translations most corrupted [Page 299] and authoriz'd only by your Ministers. To confer these Translations with the Originals they cannot do, no nor you neither. For you know not infallibly the true Originals. It is your own doctrine, Translations are only known to be Gods word as far as they are known to agree with the Originals: how far this is, you (not knowing the true Original) cannot tell. Of this you and all yours (who deny the Church infallible) are ignorant. And upon your word, who (how learned so ever) are ignorant of this, which only concerns them, they all in this highest matter must rely. I put this so fully with great reflection, because that Noble party (whose Champion you are) gave occasion to all our combating by carping at our blind obeying our Priest, and believing them, whereas all those of your Religion could go to the fountain. But alas! when that fountain, which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health is so poisened (as I shewed in the last Number) that millions of millions (as your own Broughto [...] saith) runne to Hell flames by occasion of this corruption; And I may most truly say far more perish by mis-understanding (whilest 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 falsly Translated. Thus they perish for not hearing that Church, which their own Scripture bids them heare, whereas in doing that, which God biddeth, there can be no danger of errour, great or little. And you slander us when you say we bid the people require from the Priests mouth not the law of God but the doctrine of the Church. Sir, the doctrine of the Church is Gods law. And 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 [Page 300] 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 [Page 301] 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 [Page 302] 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 [Page 303] 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 [Page 304] 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 [Page 305] 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 [Page 306] 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 did rely only upon traditions; For if they had relied upon any things else in their beliefe, their example had bin nothing to his purpose to shew what we should have done when we had only Tradition to rely upon.
14. As for arguing about Tradition I went no Further then to shew, that the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility (in proposing for Gods word that which she delivereth us (for Gods Word) as worthy of an infallible assent in this point. And the examples I bring, prove this. Now if this point be once assented unto with an infallible assent, it draweth by unevitable Consequence the like assent to all other points, which by the same authority are testified to be likewise delivered as Gods Word; Or else you must be forced to say that it is in our power to assent to this authority as divine in all things it delivers as Gods Word, and yet to deny it in some things which it delivers as Gods word, which is a plain contradiction. Well then if upon this presupposed authority as infallible, I believe the Church delivering such and such points by her doctors and teachers, which be points never written; then it is manifest I believe her in other [Page 307] points then those which were then written; & so I may with as good reason believe her now upon her own authority, testifying other points then those which are written. Whence you see all I say holdeth good even in Traditions of proper name which we say are besides that which is written. I cannot conclude more opposite to you then with your own words here P. 73. Tradition in matters of faith unwritten is of equall authority to scripture. The Traditions we stand upon be matters of faith truly once revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles, though this revelation were not written by them; Therefore this is of equall authority to Scripture even according to your own words.
15 I going on to prove yet further that Christ intended to guide us not by the Scripture only, but cheifly by his Church, used this argument Neither the Apostles nor their Successors took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as all, or the greater part of them could understand. You answer; they did take care that the new Testament should be written in Greek. Then you being still to prove that Greek was understood by all, or the greater part of the world, your only proof of this is only out of Tully; saying, Graeca per totum Orbem leguntur, Greek is read though the whole World, and so is Virgil in latin. But neither the one nor the other is to be understood in a sense making to our purpose; for both these sayings are only true thus, that the more learned sort of men every where read Greek, and Virgil. And these words of Tully being delivered in on Encomiasticall Oration (pro Archia) may truely be said to be spoken by way of a Notable amplification. And either this must be confessed, or Scripture denied. For it is evident out of Scripture. That the Vulgar language of diverse Nations situated, even between that place we call Constantinople, and the Citty of Antioch, in which a man would suppose the Greek language farre more common, then in the more Western or any Northern, or Southern places, yet I say even between those [Page 308] two Cities of Antioch (where the same Tully saith, Archias was born and studied) and Constantinople, the Greek tongue was not the Vulgar language of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia minor, Phrygia, Pamphilia, all which Nations the Scripture (Act. 2.) testifieth to have had different languages. Within that compasse is also Galatia which Saint Hierome testifieth to have had a language somewhat like those of Trevers. If nations so neere Greece had not the Vulgar use of that language, but that tongue had so small a compasse even in Asia, and some few Eastern parts of Europe, all other parts of Europe and whole Africa using Vulgarly other Tongues, how short do you fall of proving that Greek was understood by the greater part of the World? And if this cannot be proved, then I said truly that though the Apostles writ the new Testament in Greek, yet they did not take any care to have it communicated to all Nations in such Languages, as they could all, or the greater part understand. For all, or the greater part could not understand Greek; call here to mind how lowd you use to cry out against us for using our Common prayer in Lattin, though Lattin be so common among all well bred people. And yet our Cōmon prayer is a thing only offered to God by the Priests (who understand what they say) for the people. But the New Testament contains (as you say) the only necessary groūd of faith, faith necessary to salvation. But the falsity of this your saying is convinced by the Apostles taking no care (neither read we of any care taken for many yeares after their times) to communicate the whole Canon of Scripture to the severall converted Nations in their several tongues; I pray name me the time when the Scripture can be first shewed to have bin thus communicated to the people of so severall languages? You will sweat for some hundred yeares before you can find this either done or effectually desired to be done. They know the tongue could sufficiently deliver Gods Word to the people, and that Orall Tradition joyned to dayly profession, practise would abundantly suffice for the infallible delivery of Gods Word.
[Page 309]16. You move the question how the people should clearly know the true tradition from the false? I answer first they could know this better then know true Scripture from false, for they could not do that, but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scriptures from the Tradition recommending false. Again, after Christ they could do this as well (and better) then their forefathers for many hundreds of years, yea for two thousand, yea for twice two thousand yeares together. Reflect a little upon the efficacy of Tradition, joyned with perpetual profession, and answerable practice dayly occurring. For example. The Apostles by onely unwriting Tradition did clearly, undeniably teach the baptizing of Children, prayer for the faithfull departed. This Tradition from hence came to be Professed as true doctrine by all the first Christians, and conformably hereunto, they in all places baptized their Children, in all places they prayed for the faithfull departed. Nothing more common then being born: every one that is born dieth: whence dayly was the practice of baptizing infants and yet more dayly the practice of praying for the dead, because they baptize infants but once, but they pray often for the same man who is dead. Will we suppose these two traditions are called in question concerning the truth of them. And let us suppose this to be done (as it was done) in the last age. Learned men looking in Records of their own and all other Countries, will find every where Christnings, and every where prayers for the dead, all inscriptions of graves, all wills and testaments, all foundations of pious places will testifie this custome farre more strongly then that of Baptisme, yea in no one countrey nor in any one age since Christ (untill this last following age) did ever any one man deny praying for the dead, except Aerius counted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and by St. Epiphanius as you know very well. Hence it is made evidently credible to any learned man that this Tradition of baptizing Infants, and much more the Tradition of praying for [Page 310] the dead, came to us from the Apostles, it not being possible for all true believers, in so many severall countries, and so many severall ages, to agree in the profession and daily practice of this truth, without they had received these two things joyntly with their first faith, else the novelty and the authors of such a novelty, would in some time or some place, have been made known to posterity, for no one mans worke was it, no, nor no one hundred mens worke, to bring all men, every where, to any such novelty with so unanimous, and no where contradicted consent. The Ignorant people will have the truth of these Traditions also made evidently credible unto them by the publick, unanimous and universal consent of all antient men and all Ancient Monuments and also the like unanimous affirmation of all learned men of any standing, who will all and every where profess themselves assured of it, by their Learning and certain knowledge of those Traditions proved in the manner I now said. This maketh the matter evidently credible to the ignorant. Wherefore they should do most imprudently not to believe that these points came from the Apostles, and then supposing that they came from them, they should do a damnable sin not to believe them. Can any rationall man desire a more rational proceeding? How many true believers commended in Scripture, cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed? How we proceeding thus escape clearly all Circle I told you the last Chapter. Numb. 31.32. Now as you must grant that our Church (submitted unto as infallible) presently by her authority decides all controversies; so her Traditions once acknowledged as infallible, will decide the points questioned. The Scripture never so clear can never decide any one controversie untill it be first acknowledged. Thus you see the two things which you here desired to see.
17. After this I passed to another quality which the Church hath, and the Bible hath not, though it be a quality [Page 311] primely necessary to decide all controversies, whence it appeareth that God intended not the Bible but the Church to be our judge. This quality is, that the Church is a living judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time, and who can heare me and you, and be heard by me & you so manifestly, that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church, or if we do doubt we can propose our doubts and she will explicate, her meaning. Such a living judge as this we must have to put effectually an End to all Controversies that can arise. And as for the Bible I have shewed that it doth not decide all points necessary to Salvation, the Bible heareth not new Controversies arising, as I prove by this clear example. An Arrian▪ sta [...]eth up (as really he did) and saith that these words of the Scripture, These three are one are words added by us to the true Scripture. This Controversie and a thousand such like the Bible heareth not, the Bible judgeth not, for there is not a word of it in all the Bible. And though you say you can see true Scripture by its light, you shall never get any man to believe that you your selfe do really believe that you see every verse in Scripture, by its light. No light appeareth so dimm as these words appear to man. Three are one. Yet besides this light you (who reject Church Tradition as fallible) you I say, have left you no other infallible ground, nor any infallible meanes to convince the Arrian, untill you hold the Church infallible. All other use which you say you make of the (Church) sufficeth not to ground an infallible assent, for when all comes to all, you make any private man, and consequently every Arrian Cobler (as I shewed) the last Court of Judicature in giving the finall sentence, on which all depends. For he must be the last judge, who after the Churches judgement, must give sentence that she hath, or hath not judged against Scripture. That you may see my argument is not peccant; I will frame both the Premisses and the Conclusion thus. Faith being an infallible [Page 312] assent, Controversies concerning faith cannot be determined so as to end then effectually, but by an infallible living judge who can heare you and me, and be heard by you and me. But no other then the Church, can (with any ground) be held to be this living judge; Therefore She must be held to be this judge. I doe not without Reason put in my Premisses the terme of infallible, for faith being an infallible assent, must needs require an infallible authority to rest upon. This Authority she must find in all points to which she is bound to give this assent. But she is bound to give this assent to diverse points not proposed clearly in Scripture as I shewed the last Chapter. Therefore she is bound to give this assent to diverse of those points onely, because they are proposed by the Church, to which she could not possibly be bound to give an infallible assent, without due assurance of her infallibility.
48 You object that the Church Traditions cannot hear you and me. I answer that it is the Church who proposeth these Traditions, and not the Traditions which are our judge; you ask me whither an Heretike be not condemned by himselfe as Saint Paul saith, and you interpret his saying, so that he must needs be condemned by himselfe, for no other reason, but because he had in him the principles of the word of God, which he gain-said by his contrary error, and so he was condemned thereby, and therefore that can Judge. Sir he is not an Heretike but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience, that he gain-saith the Scripture. All christians are readier to die then to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture. When St. Paul writ those words, the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written, and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have ben the infallible judge of Controversies. And I wonder you should say, the Church at the writing of this by St. Paul was not sufficiently formed, which the same St. Paul testifieth to have been formed before his conversion, accusing himselfe for having above measure persecuted [Page 313] the Church of God. And before his conversion, the Number of the disciples was multiplied, Act. 6. yea Act. 8. Simon Magus was turned Heretick before St. Paul was turned Christian, or any word of the new Scripture was writen. The meaning of St. Paul is that an Heretick might, if he would, clearly see his private doctrine to be opposite to the known publick Doctrine of the Church, which Church then shined with the glory of infinite Miracles, stupendious conversions, and most eminent Sanctity, and was then formed most completely with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith. Yea you will say she was then more completely furnished to that end then ever she was since that time.
49. Now because your cheif exception against the Churches being our judge, is that you hold her not infallible, besides all the proofs I have already brought of her infallibility, I shall now add divers more. But in the first place I must a little more fully tell you what we understand by the name of the Church: He who is a seeker of his Religion must first believe the Universal Church diffused to be furnished by God with true infallible meanes to direct us securely in all doubts of faith, wherefore he most prudently judgeth himselfe bound to joyne himselfe to her in faith, being convinced that she directed most securely in faith. Being thus also a seeker resolved to ioyne to these true believers. When he proceedeth further to take a particular account in whom this infallible meanes (given to the Church Universal) of directing all securely in matters of faith doth consist, he will readily find that it doth not consist in all the members of the Universal Church, for Children and women be of the Church, and yet their Vote (in no mans opinion) is required to the deciding any controversie in faith, the Laiety also hath no decisive Voice in those points, nor every inferiour Clergy man, but only such as are Prelates, Overseers and Governors over the rest. So that in fine this infallible direction is Unanimously [Page 314] affirmed by us all, to be undoubtedly settled upon the authority of the prime Pastors & Prelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell, with their cheife Pastor and Head the Bishop of Rome: Against a thing so easily to be understood you cry out aloud of strange intricatenesse and inextricable proceedings. And yet I think most clowns of this Land did easily understand what was meant by a decree of the Kingdome, to the which the consent of King and Kingdome assembled in Parliament (as the custome was for many years together) was required. Now what more difficulty is there to know what we meane by a decree, or Definition of the Church; The kingdome representative was the king and the Parliament, The Church representative is the cheife Bishop with the full Assembly of the other Bishops in a lawful Council; the Decrees, and definitions of which assembly be the decrees and definition of the Church. In a thing so cleare you labour your uttermost to raise a thick mist.
50. First you obiect who can be certain by a divine faith of the lawfulnes and Regularity of a Pope in his first creation. I answer that when I speake of a Pope defining in a lawfull Councel (as I do now speak) I speak of such a Pope to whom the Church submitted in calling the Councel, and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful head to preside in the Councel, These very acts supply all defects in his election and do make it evidently credible that he is the true head who thus admitted defined with the Councel as their acknowledged head. Secondly you ask when there was Pope against Pope, who of the people could distinguish the right Pope. I answer, that he shall ever be esteemed the right Pope to whom the Prelates of the Church shall unanimously obey, when he calleth them to meet in a general Councel, and in this Councel to preside over them. To to have two such Popes, as these are, at one time is impossible. And this is the only time in which a Pope defineth with [Page 315] a lawful Councel. What you say of Popes not defining in such a Councel is not our Case put me a Pope defining with a lawful Councel and then prove him fallible if you can. Whether the Popes definitions out of a Councel be fallible or infallible maketh nothing to this purpose. Only this is evident if they be infallible out of a Councel, they be infallible in a Councel. Thirdly you think that no Controversies can (in our opinion) be decided when there is a doubt who is true Pope. And you ask who is then to call a Councel. And when the Councel is called you think us to think that this Councel can define nothing without a Pope. I doubt not Sir but you have found a clear answer to all this in Bellarm lib. 2. de Concilis Chap. 19. that although a Councel without a Pope cannot define any article of faith, yet in time of schisme it can judge which is true Pope, and provide the Church of a true Pastor if she had none, who thus provided by the Councels authority, may dissolve the Councel if he pleaseth or if he please to have them remaine assembled, they remaine so now by his authority, and can define as well as other Councels called by the Pope. In that meeting in which the Pope was to be chosen, or declared the undoubted Pope, the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority, and assemble themselves. Fourthly you ask how we can by divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulnes and generality of Councels, for Councels have been called by Emperours not by Popes; Sir your Church which never had, nor shall have generall Councel, is to seeke in all things belonging to them. Our Church almost in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in general Councels, and by perpetual practice hath been sufficiently informed to deliver (by the assistance of the Holy Ghost) all that she hath received from her ancestors to be essential to a true Councel, and to deliver this point infallibly. To your obiection in order I answer, first, That it is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institution by which either Emperours [Page 316] be assured to be still found in the world, or that, when they have that dignity, they be by divine institution invested with a power to call Councels. We seek for this divine Institution. This we will not admit until it can be shewed in Scripture or Tradition, the fact of calling, sheweth not divine Institution. Secondly as for the Prelates of the Church we can shew divine Institution, Act. 20.28. Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock to feed or govern the Church of God. And 4. Epho. Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ, for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ, that henceforth we may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine &c. Thirdly, The Emperour, is not by divine Institution Lord of the Christian world. No nor of any considerable part of it. Wherefore seeing that a motive power is no motive power any further then it can, or ought to be able to motive, the Emperiall power, which cannot move further then it reigneth, nor ought not to move further, cannot consequently command any further then his territory at the uttermost. The power of the cheife Pastor of the Universal Church is coextended to the Universal Church. All Bishops of the Universal being to be moved, must be moved by such a power as this is. If Emperours called councils it was not by an Ecclesiastical calling, such an one as the Pope called them by at the very selfe same time, but the Emperours calling was only political, proceeding from a temporal power, subserving to the Ecclesiastical, and not able to force them by censure in case of refusing to come, as the Ecclesiastical power could, which power implored the Emperiall assistance to concurre with her, only for the more effectual excution. Perhaps somtimes Emperours might venture to call, dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastor which they presumed would be assuredly obtained in so just necessities as there seemed to presse for a speedy meeting. If Emperors were present in Councels it was only [Page 317] by their presence and good countenance to honor, encourage, and further the proceedings of the Councel, and to passe their Vote in points of beliefe. You add something else now but it comes again presently. Fifthly you object, How shall we know that every one of the Councel hath a free election to it, and a free decisive Vote in it? I answer the freedome of every mans calling is made evidently credible by the publick sūmons sent through the whole Christian world obeyed by the same without any pertinatious opposition, and the answerable publick apperance from all parts of the world every one exhibiting the publickely authenticated testimony of his election, and confirmation. If any man be excluded he may (without he will renounce his right) be heard in the Councel, which being a publick hearing, the matter cannot but be known. Many yet never were, nor can be thus injured without making their injury notorious by publik protestations and such lik remedies alwayes used against unjust exclusion, or hinderance of liberty in Voting. If the Councel be known notoriously to use such procedings we are not to acknowledg it for a lawfull Councel. Again as private mens proceedings are not to be judgeed bad unless they can be proved to be so, much lesse ought the proceedings of the Church representative to be judged bad without sufficient proof of the contrary. And when such evident and notorious ill proceedings are not apparent, nothing can be solidly objected against the lawfulness of the Councel. And therefore it being to be admitted as a lawfull Councel, it belongeth to the Holy Ghost to provide that their difinitions be not prejudiciall to the Church put under his protection, and direction. You only look what the inward nature of humane malice might act, but you should also look to the extrinsical over-ruling providence promised by God against humane malice, and weakness. This is that which maketh all these factions, and bandings, and domineering self interest never to be effectually destructive of that secure direction [Page 318] promised by God to his Church. Though hell gates should be set wide open they should not prevaile against her. Sixthly you ask how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Councel is general? I answer, the publick Summons to the Councel sent through the Christian world, The Publick appearance of Prelats made upon these summons from all parts of the world, Their publick sitting, publick subscribing, publick divulging their decrees and definitions, acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present, denied by no man to be theirs with the least shew of probability, no more then such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament. All these motives, I say, maketh it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the Church. Now this being evidently credible to be her definition, and I believing by divine faith, all her definitions to be true. I also believe this definition amongst the rest to be true. It is a great signe you are ill furnished with strong arguments, when you would perswade us that in things so easy to be known there be such insuperable difficulties. The Councel of Trents definitions concerning faith were never opposed by France, though some things ordained for practice seemed lesse sutable to the particular state of that Kingdome, yet this difficulty was at last removed. Seventhly you ask how many Bishops in the Trent Councel were furnished with a title to over-power the rest for the Popes ends. I pray Sir, tell me how many. But tell me by credible witnesses (such as are their own subscriptions) who can assure me of this truth; And when you have told me this, give me leave to aske what one of them was as much as suspected to be of a faith different from the rest. If they differed not in faith from the rest, how then can the Pope be suspected to have acted against faith by making such Bishops. Again doth the making of such Bishops make the holy Ghost unable to order things so in the councel that nothing shall happen destructive of the secure direction undertaken to be afforded [Page 319] for ever by him. Saul shall sooner turn a Prophet, and Caiphas shall prophecie not knowing what he doth, before the spirit of truth, sent to teach the Church all truth, shall faile in his duty. Eightly you ask how the Church was provided for when for so many yeares there was no Pope defining with a Councel? This time you mean was the first three hundred years after Christ, when for persecution no Council could be gathered. All this time the known doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh, and so notorious by the Tradition of the Church diffused, and there remained also so Universal a respect and obedience to the cheife Bishop of the Church notoriously known to be the upholder of true doctrine, that the Church wanted not meanes to decide Controversies as farre as the necessity of those times required: whence the Quartodecimani although they opposed nothing set down clearly in Scripture, were Iudged Heretikes for opposing the doctrine of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition. Now as the Church could want Councils for so many years, so it could want Councils for the short space of schism. For the necessity of new declarations it not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity, calling for instant remedy, and a reme-of this nature only, Scripture alone, you say will remedy this necessity. We besides scripture have alwayes at hand, the many definitions of former Councils, and the known Traditions of the Church, which alone served Gods Church in those two thousand yeares before Scripture, and for two thousand yeares more served the faithful amongst the Gentiles who had not the Scriptures, which remained almost solely and alone to the Iewes. Ninthly you ask if the Pope and Council do differ at any time about some question, what shall be defined? I answer nothing shall be defined because this essential hinderance manifesteth no definition of such a particular question, to it at that time necessary for the preservation of the Church; for if this depended upon such a present definition, the Holy Ghost [Page 320] (whom you still forget) would not forget to inspire the parties requisite to do their duties. Tenthly you ask how my opinion stands with theirs who affirm the government of the Church to be Monarchicall by Christs institution. I answer our government in England was Monarchical this last five hundred years, and yet our Monarchs could not do all things without a Parliament. Again those who make the Pope sufficiently assisted to define all alone, cannot possibly deny what I say, to wit, that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Councel. Eleventhly, you ask, How many (general) Councells have been opposite to one another. I answer. Not so much as one. You ask again, in which or with which did he not erre. I answer, he neither erred in or with any. In the Nicene he erred not, as you will grant, nor in the three next General Councels, as your Church of England grants. He subscribed not in the Councel of Ariminum, how then did he erre in it? yea because he subscribed not, that Councel is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians; or if your English Church accounted that a lawful Councel, they must admit that, whilest they admit the first foure Councels. So that I am amazed to see a learned man four or five times object the contrariety of the Councel of Ariminum to the Councel of Nice, to prove from thence that two lawful general Councels can be opposite to one another, you knowing well that this Councel of Ariminum was no lawful Councel, the cheif Bishop and head of the Church not subscribing in it. Tell mee I pray, if by all your great reading, you can find one single Holy Father who did ever censure any one general Councel of doctrine, in any one point either false, or opposite to any former lawful general Councel. In what age then live we, which licenseth every Mechanical fellow, freely to tax the Councels of all ages of errours against Scripture. This is the fruit of crying out in what Councel or with what Councel did not the Pope erre. Twelfthly, you ask me (I pray see my 12. Number above, fine) did ever [Page 321] any of the ancient councels determine of their own infallibility. I answer the ancientest councel of all said, Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us. Could any thing fallible seem good to the Holy Ghost? Or to a council lawfully assembled in the holy Ghost, as all lawful councils were ever supposed by themselves to be? and upon this ground they ever assumed an authority sufficient not only to be securely followed by the whole Church in their definitions, but denounced an Anathema to the rejectors of their definitions; which had been wickedly done if there might have been errours in faith. The most bloudy persecution of tyrants could not have been halfe so pernitious to the Church, as it was thus to be taught, and compelled by the unanimous authority of Christendome, to embrace that as Catholick doctrine, which is an errour in faith. And surely a practice so Universal, so frequent, and yet so pernitious, would have been cried out upon over and over again, by the most zealous and learned ancient Fathers, who notwithstanding never opened their mouthes against this proceding of councils which could not be justifiable. For this proceeding of setling a court of so great authority, and an everlasting Court to be called in matters of greatest moment until the end of the world, so to teach the world in all ages the Catholick truth, in greatest points, if in place of this truth, errors against faith could have been perpetually obtruded even to the whole world, and that with the greatest authority in the world; and this under pain of being cut off from the body of Christ; imagin if you can a thing more pernitious then this. And yet this was the proceeding of all antiquity if the Church were fallible as you say. Thirtenthly you ask me what I think of Nazianzens opinion about councels in his Ep. to Procopius the 12 as you say, but I find it in the 42. Sir I think if what you have said, against the proof of any point out of the General consent of Fathers, be true; no single proof, brought from some one of them, can have any force out of your mouth, what force soever it might have had out [Page 322] of a Mouth used to speak otherwise of them. But you are pressing & asking, shall I tell you, yes Sir tell me. Yet let me tell you that what he saith will be nothing to the purpose unles he can be shewed to speak of a lawful free General Councel called, and directed by the chiefe Pastor of the Church presiding in it: now Sir tell me, doth he speak of such a councel? His words are, I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops, (if I must speak the truth) for I never saw any good end of a Synod, nor that had an end of evils more then an addition. Sir you much wrong this grave Father if you think he speaketh of such councils as I now mentioned. Before his speaking these words there had been but one such council, to wit, that of Nice. Let us hear from himself his opinion of this one councel out of those Treatises which goe just before his Epistles, which you might have read as well as them. In the first of these Treatises being asked the most certain doctrine of faith; He answereth that it is that which was promulgated by the Holy Fathers at Nice, & that he never did prefer nor was able to prefer any thing before it, so He Tract. 50. And in his next Treatise he explicates this faith at large. And in the end he saith he doth imbrace the treatise of this council to the uttermost power of his mind, knowing it opposed with invincible verity against all Hereticks, and in his Orations to Saint Athanasius he sayeth, The Fathers of this council were gathered by the Holy Ghost. Saint Gregory then, who speaketh thus, had the same spirit that the other Saint Gregory (the great) who said, I doe professe my selfe to reverence the first fower councils as I reverence the fower bookes of the Gospel. And in this manner do I reverence the fift council. Whosoever is of another mind let him be an Anathema, l. 1 Epistol. Ep. prope finem. He then who thus reverenced lawful general councils, did not doubtles speak the former words concerning them. But did he perhaps speak them of lawful particular Councils? No, how then? It was hard fortune to live in a time, in which the Arrians had so great power that they disturbed the lawful proceedings of several particular councils. [Page 323] Hence the councils of Seleucum, Tirus, Ariminū, Millan, Smyrna, came to unfortunate conclusions, rather encreasing then lessening the former evils. Neither were the times so altered that there appeared any great likelyhood that in those parts, any better conclusion could be expected of that council to which he was called, when he writ that Epistle. So also Saint Basil (his bosom friend) writing at that time to Saint Athanasius Ep. 52. said He thought it impossible for a General Council to be assembled in those times. Clear then it is that Saint Gregory spoke only of such councils as had lately been held and could be held in those daies, in which the Arrians would be sure to crosse all that might be good and to make those particular meetings patronize their cause. What you further speak of a private Bishop of Bitonto telling the Fathers of the council of Trent to their face, of their falling with one consent from Religion to superstition, from Faith unto infidelity, from Christ unto Antichrist, from God to Epicurus, is a thing I never yet did read in any credible Historian; And I dare say never any credible Historian, from Christs time until that time, ever could find such a saucy speech to relate in History, used as yet by any modest, or immodest Catholicke to the face of a Councel. And can you put on a forehead to countenance such a speech, not having any one example from Christs time to this day as I said? So it is. The Catholikes and onely the Roman Catholikes have been the men who were still imployed in upholding the authoritie of councils of Fathers, and you cannot (I say it again and again) find an example from Christs time unto this age, of any who were not known Hereticks, who were carping at the authority of councils or Fathers. You spoke full enough before of the Fathers. I think you have not wanted much of doing your worst against councels, although you said in another place, In what do we oppose Councels? and you would seem to acknowledge them the highest Tribunal on earth, though so much be said, [Page 324] for their vilification. And when you have cried down the authority of Fathers & patronized the reprochful language of this private Man against a whole council, of what authority do you think this one private mans saying could be?
21. Hence you see how little all this serveth for an answer of what yet is to be answered in the 21 Number of my former paper, specially when I shall have added the other proofs which I have of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church. Of this by and by. Now you invite me to re-examin the Determinations of the council of Trent. It appeareth by what I said Chap. 2. Num. 4.5.6.7. That it is fine doctrine that determinations of councils should be examined by such as I and you are. Have we such assistance of the Holy Ghost as councils have? Have we halfe the authority, or any thing like one quarter of even the wit and learning which they have? Sir, Let us two set down and examine how true this is which I shall now say. Either the dete [...]minations of General Councils be such as are evidently against clear Scripture, or the Texts which we think they gain-say be not evident to the contrary, which if they be not, it would be a wonderful imprudence in me, and you, to think we should surer hit right upon the meaning of obscure places in Scripture then the whole council hath done. But now if the places alledgeable against the councils be evidently cleare Texts, do you think to perswade any pious and prudent Man, that so very many (and many of them so very eminent for piety and for prudence) as are known to have subscribed to so many General Councils, not to have been able to see that which hath been evidently set down before all their Eyes in clear Scripture? God give us Humility. God give us charity. God have mercy upon us in the bitter day of his Iudgment, if we passe so bitter a Iudgment against the whole Church representative. And yet if you passe not this bitter Iudgment, you will never passe this objection without being posed.
[Page 325]22. Good Sir, what mean you here to bid me say no more of this point (concerning the Holy Ghost giving to his Church an assistance reaching to infallibility,) but you would have me now measure the infallibility of our councils or Churches by their determinations, and to see how they agree with Scripture. Let us not (say you) see your opinions by infallibility but your infallibility by your determinations set forth by your Church. Remember Sir, what you find in the 7 Number of this chapter where you undertake to instruct me in the right way of disputing, according to which I should not stand shewing the Churches determinations to be such as should be obeyed, but I should shew à priori (as they say) that she is infallible and that therefore her definitions are to be admitted. Now when I come to do what you would have me to do, you cry out, say no more of this point, but go now the other way, cast the weight of this argument upon the other shoulder. It galleth me upon this. Sir, by your good leave I must dwell upon this argument yet a great while. The more it presseth the better it is.
23. This I will do by passing to my 22. Number,Of my 22th. Number. where first you stumble, and then tread upon Luther. Let him ly where you will. He is no better then his Fathers. I step over him: and so prove this infallibility of the Church. I cite Saint Paul, Tim. 3.15. calling the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of Faith. May not all securely in their faith, rely upon the pillar of Truth? May they not most groundedly ground themselves upon the ground of Truth it self? You answer, There is a double pillar, and a double ground, one principal, the Scripture, the other less principal and subordinate, the Church. But this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not. The Church must still be a true pillar, and a true ground of Truth. The people believed God and Moses, saith the Scripture. Moses was infinitely under God, yet this hindred not his being truly such a pillar of Truth as was to be relied upon securely in matters of Faith. I [Page 326] apply all to Moses in respect of God, what you apply to the Scripture in respect of the Church. And yet after all this as they might rely upon Moses as a pillar of Truth, so we upon the Church. All true believers for two thousand years before the writing of Scripture had no other ground to stand upon but this Church, the ground of Truth. And therefore a ground sure enough, and yet not sure enough if fallible. Yea, the true believers to whom Saint Paul did write these words. The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth, had not the whole Canon of the Scripture, 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, [Page 327] 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 [Page 328] 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 [Page 329] 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 by his word Sir, I pray why is it more blasphemy to say that God speaketh by Christs Church, who spoke infallibly by the Church of the law of Nature for two thousand yeares (see here Numb. 32.) And when he then began to speak by Moses and the Scripture to the Jewes, he still by his Church spoke to the faithful among the Gentiles) and the Jewes might have grounded their faith on that voice) for two thousand yeares more. And when the writers of the former parts of the new Testament did write what they writ, and when St. Paul did write what he writ, God did infallibly teach all by the Church; and yet these writers thought Scriptures necessary, but not necessary for all the ends for which you may think them necessary. Again, what a slender proofe is this to ground a charge of blasphemy upon so vast a multitude, as adhere to the Roman Church? There is no need of Scripture if God speaketh by his Church to [Page 330] infallibility. Did not God speak to infallibility by the Scriptures teaching that Jesus was the Messias? Was it therefore meer blasphemy to account St. John Baptist sent by God to teach the same with infallible assurance? Was it therefore neer blasphemy to think that voice was infallible by which God the Father testified the same from Heaven? Was it therefore neer blasphemy, to account the testimony of miracles (ordained to testifie the same thing) infallible, though Christ calleth it testimonium majus Joanne. Joan. 5? Or rather is it not neer blasphemy to say all these testimonies besides Scripture are needless? Do you not see that after all the testimonies of God by the Scripture, and by the Church, that still millions do not believe? Why is then one of these testimonies superfluous? The Church is not more Enthusiastical now then she was for 4. thousand years before she had all the promises which Christ made her of assistance, which should be at least as speciall and full, as she ever had before. Before she delivered only what she had received by Tradition. Now she delivereth what she received by Tradition and by Scripture, in interpreting of which (according to that 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. If others claimful assurance by the Spirit in any point, let them shew as good promises made to them in particular, as are made to the Church, and we shalt never account these false Enthusiasts. This infallible assistance being promised to the Church by God cānot be voted frō her by the multitude of mis-believers who oppose her, tho you set thē all loos to vote against her.
25 After all, you will have St. Paul call the Church the Pillar and ground of truth with an intention only to set forth the office, and not with an intention to set forth the authority of the Church. Sir, how can you know St. Paul intention but by his words? And sure I am that no word [Page 331] could in breif more fully set forth her infallible authority, then by declaring her to be the pillar it selfe, and the ground of truth. When he useth such words as declare this as sufficiently as need to be, how know you that he intended not to declare this sufficiently? I ask also in any mans apprehension, what office of the Church is signified by calling her the ground of truths? In which words an assuredly grounded authority will presently appear to be signified. O but you know his intention was to signifie the office only of the Church, and not her Authority, because he meant here to instruct Timothy how to carry himselfe in the Church of God, and to this purpose it had been impertinent to speak of her Authority, as you think. I think it was very pertinent to speak of it even to this purpose. For is it not fit that in a Church, which is to be held for the publick Oracle of the world, the cheif Pastors of this Church (especially those who were to be first of all made cheife Pastors) should behave themselves so, as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church? How much do, not your multitude only, but your greatest Doctors think themselves to say against the infallibility promised to such a Church as ours is, in which they see sometimes scandalous Popes, scandalous Cardinals, scandalous Bishops, &c. Which though it be a pittiful argument, because scandalous men, and Solomon the Idolater have been assisted with an infallibility to be Writers of Scripture it selfe, yet it is an argument which troubleth weak soules. And therefore to take away such scandals, it is very convenient that Bishops, especially those who were first of all preferred to that office, should be blameless, continent, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour; and that they should have a good report even from the enemies of the Church. Also, that the Deacons should be grave, not double tongued, not given to much Wine or covetous. These and such like precepts as these were much to the purpose, and as so were here given by St. Paul, to maintain the credit [Page 332] of such a Church as might seem to all fit to be accounted the Oracle of the World. The Pillar and ground of Truth.
59 Let us heare how you argue here. If the infallibility of the Church were here affirmed, then Timothy needed not 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, so you. A strange Consequence. The Church is infallible in defining points in a general Councel, Ergo, no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour. Was it so for the first two thousand yeares before the Scripture was written? Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediatly? And how is it true that the assistance which is immediate to the Church assembled in a full Council, includes no time for the inspiration, nor no means for the instruction? Do you think that as soon as all are assembled they are presently all, or the greater part, to define all things as fast as they are proposed; was it so when the Apostles and the Elders of the Church were assembled together in the first Councel? though this issued forth their decree with this preface. It seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and us. Was there no time required for this short Decree. No means used before it was made? Read those words. The Apostles and the Elders coming together to consider of the matter And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said. There followeth his speech. Then St. James made an other speech, To what purpose all these speeches, and these made after former much disputing, if your doctrine be true, that neither time nor use of any be to proceed the immediate assistance of the holy Ghost which they had undoubtedly. And here as if you had proved some thing you have a fling at the Council of Trent for sitting so long; a thing as little derogatory to that Councils infallibility, as that much disputing, and making several [Page 333] speeches was derogatory to the infallibility of the council of the Apostles, in which onely one short Decree was made. Look on the many Canons, and Decrees for Reformation, in matters subject to great Disputes, Oppositions of secular power (which crossed not the Apostles first Council) Look on the multitude of Heresies condemned, after a full hearing of all that could be said by all parties, and it must needs be rather a point of satisfaction to all, then a scandal unto any, to see so mature consideration used. But both a slow and a hastie, and a mean delivery of any ones condemnation, will be distasteful to the condemned person.
27. As for the Authoritie of St. Athanasius calling the definition of the council of Nice, by which the Consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father, The Word of God, it sheweth clearly, that this prime Doctor held that God delivered his Word unto us by the council. Your Answer is that the councils Definition did not bind with Relation to the Authority of the Council, but by the authothority of Scripture Ministerially proposed by the council. Sir, I have already shewed, Chap. 2. Numb. 4. that the clearest Text which the council had to cite, even that text, I and my Father are one, can be so expounded by an Arrian, that it doth no more then probably declare the consubstā tiality. But (as you say here) If the text be but probable we cā not frō thence urge this probable sense of it as an object of faith. But S. Athanasius urgeth Cōsubstantialitie (after the Nicene council) as Gods VVord, and an Object of Faith, which he cannot doe with a Relation to a Text onely probable in Scripture; Therefore he doth it with Relation to the infallibility of the councils Authority, which council if it had onely Authority to propose, like a Minister, such and such Texts, as may be severally taken (and consequently mistaken) by an Interpreter, who is onely fallible, could not be said in its Interpretations to propose the undoubted Word of God. [Page 334] And though Saint Athanasius held that as truth before the council in order to himself who was convinced, that his interpretation was conformable to the ancient Doctrine of the Church, yet in order to those, who were not before the council, convinced by that Verily, he could nor boldly denounce this as an infallible meaning of Gods Word obliging all. O! This Declaration of Gods Word by the council, he boldly said, The Word of God, by the Council of Nice remained for ever. After this, you come in again with the council of Ariminum, contending that council as well to be believed for it self as the council of Nice. And you think if more exceptions could have been made against the authority of the council of Ariminum, Saint Austin, against his Arrian adversary might easily, have Prevailed, by insisting onely upon the authority of the council of Nice, which he waveth, and goeth to arguments out of Scripture. Sir, A man of reading cannot but know that the council of Ariminum is never by the Fathers (no nor by your Church of England) numbred among the first foure councils, which foure by addition of this council (had it been a lawful council) should have been made Five. And you might as well think, that I might prevail against you by only citing the council of Trent, which I never cited yet, but stood wholly on other arguments. For I know as we in vain dispute with Heathens out of Scripture, or out of Saint Matthewes Gospel against Manich [...]ans, or out of the Machabees against you; so Saint A [...]st [...] in vain had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it, as you do at that of Trent. He being well furnished with other arguments out of Scriptures admitted by him, intended by them onely at that time to overthrow him, and not to meddle with a long contention (fit to fill a book alone) about the validity of the council of Nice, and invalidity of that of Ariminum, as we two for the like reason doe not stand onely contesting about the authority of the [Page 335] council of Trent. I am now for a long time to contest with you about the Scripture onely, as Saint A [...]stin did with him.
28. But before I enter further upon this contestation about this controversie of the Infallibility of the Church, I must put you in mind of your own doctrines which teacheth that all necessary controversies are clearly decided according to the truth by plain Scripture. This controversie then being one of the most necessary must clearly according to your doctrine be decided for you against me by plain Scripture. If then I can but shew that it is not thus clearly decided against me, I clearly shew that I hold no errour in this point. For all errour in such a necessary point as this is, can be demonstrated to be against plain Scripture. What I hold (to wi [...]t, that the Church is Infallible) cannot be demonstrated by plain Scripture to be so. Therefore what I hold is no error. Now I must prove that what I hold of the infallibility of the Church cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error. This I prove thus. The Scripture is not so clear against this as it is for this. Therefore this cannot by clear Scripture be demonstrated to be an error. My first proposition must be shewed by citing as clear texts for what I hold of this point, as you can bring against it. Well then, for this point I have alledged in the beginning of this chapter, the text, promising, That the gates of Hell shall not prevail against this Church; and that text which tels us we must hear the Church under pain of being by Gods judgement accounted as Publicans and Heathens, and that the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth.
29. In my 23. Numb. of my former Treatise I adde a fourth Text; Behold I am with you all dai [...]s, Of my 23th. Number. even to the consummation of the world. Out of this & such like promises made to the Apostles, we prove their infallibility in teaching, in writing, &c. But these words are to be verified unto the consummation of the world, therefore they must not [Page 336] only contain a promise made of being with the Apostles, who died a thousand and 6 hundred yeares ago, but of being with the Prelats of the Church their successors, who shall be to the consummation of the world. Your answer to this Text shall be rendred in your own words that you may not complain of foul play. Your words were, Although the promise be extendible to the end of the world, yet it is not necessary to understand it so, as that there shall alwayes be equality of assistance to the times of the Apostles, which is hard to affirme since we cannot see that there is any such necessity for such assistance. And by those words such assistance. Your last reply sheweth that you meane assistance extended to Infallibility. Sir, stand to Scripture and shew out of the Text that he promiseth to be with them, securing them from all error in the first age, and he promiseth not so much for the second or third age. Against your reasons we have our reasons, bring against my illimited text another text, teaching clearly that my Text ought to be limited to a smaller assistance in other ages then was here promised for the first. As for the necessity of the people (which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infallibility) it was greater in ages remoter from Christ, you ask why then be our traditions now equally infallible to those of these times. I answer that as it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles, was crucified, did rise again, then it was presently after these things happened, yet all these things be as infallibily true now, as they were then, and as infallilible; so I say of Traditions, which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty. But to go on. What if there be no such necessity of such assistance for other ages; what Text have you to prove that God must needs give no more then is necessary, and cannot promise more, and give what he promiseth? I know you will say this infallibility in ages after the Scripture was not necessary, because the Scriptures alone would serve to decide all controversies. Sir, did not the Church [Page 337] alone serve to decide all Controversies before the Scripture was written. Yes, Why then was Scripture thought necessary by you even for this end, for which the Church was well provided before? Again, the old Scripture, did it not testifie, as much as was necessary, that Jesus Christ was the true Messias? Yes. To what end then was Saint John Baptist sent to testifie this? To what end a voyce sent from Heaven to testifie this? To what end so many Miracles wrought to testifie this? To what end did Christ and his Apostles still further testifie this? Mark here how false your judgement is in thinking God will promise just what is necessary, and no more. Sir, in Ages after the first when the Church should grow from a Grain of Mustard-seed, to be a Tree of vast extent, in such a vast compasse, and in progresse of many Ages a world of doubts would rise, which Bookes were Scripture, which not? Which corrupted Scripture, which not? Which was the undoubted sense of the uncorrupted Scripture, which not? Why might not Christ (for any thing you know by Scripture) think this a sufficient Reason to promise an assistance extended to infallibility for other Ages of the Church as well as for the first age. Will an authority so assisted to testifie all this infallibly be lesse necessary then so many Authorities to Testifie that Jesus Christ was the true Messias, after it was infallibly Testified by true Scripture? And all these Testimonies were given to the Jewes, as ill as they were disposed. How then can you say of the Church of Christ, that she, for want of this Disposition, was deprived of this Assistance in all Ages but the first? VVhat you adde of Traditions, hath been already Answered: See also Number Twelve. But what you adde of Scripture having still the same certaintie is apparently false, speaking (as you speake) in Order to assure us. For you your selfe confesse, that divers Bookes of Scripture (as the Apocalyps [Page 338] &c.) are now held certain, which were not held so before. Again, many, and a good many, bookes of Scripture are quite lost. How know you by Scripture only, that no necessary point for practice or beliefe (contained in those bookes only) did not perish with the bookes themselves. And as for the bookes we have, you see how uncertain we remain about the true sense of them in highest points. Then they had the Apostles themselves, or the known Disciples of the Apostles, to tell them the meaning of these words, This is my Body, is this so really, or figuratively only; These words, Baptize all Nations, do or do not, include Infants. To be a Priest, or a Bishop, was to have power to sacrifice, to absolve, or was it not? Now times make these held for uncertainties; whereas by and by you admit that by this promise of Christ, the Church is secure from damnable error, though not from all simple errors, for then no body should be left for God to be withal; you admit that which will destroy quite what you said before. For before you said, Heresie consisted in opposition to clear Scripture: whence all those must needs be Hereticks who opposed clear Scripture. Therefore all those who held these prime points in which you and we differ, with us against you, were Hereticks; for they held these points, which (as you say) are against clear Scripture; But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church baptizing, teaching all Nations, &c. but those who held these prime points in which we and you differ; wherefore we must confesse that Christ was with these Opposers of evident Scripture, or else you cannot shew with what Members of the Church he was for all these last ages preceding the Reformation. Let us go on.
30. What kind of assistance Christ promised, may be gathered (behold a fifth Text) out of several words in the 14. chapter of Saint John, there (verse 15.) he saith, I will pray the Father, and he shall give another Comforter, [Page 339] that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive. And verse 27. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you all things and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say unto you. And chap. 16. ver. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you; How be it when the spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth. I aske now according to these Texts, How long is this spirit of Truth to abide with them in their successours? For ever; saith the Text. Shall he also secure those, with whom he for ever abideth, from all errour? He will guide you into all Truth, saith the Text. Give me then leave, lesse to regard what you say to the contrary. Where there is all Truth, there is no errour. If you answer there is no Fundamental errour. I Reply, that all Truth excludes all errour, either in points Fundamental, or not Fundamental. And being you cannot assuredly tell me which points be Fundamental, which not; which destructive of salvation, which not; which be curable, which are not; you must grant me that she is to be believed in all points. And fear not to believe her, She will guide you into all Truth. Therfore you may securely follow her in all herwaies. This promise of Christ made equally to the Apostles, and to their successours, the visible Teachers and Guides of the Church which were to guide people into all Truth for ever, must needs have been verified all this last thousand years before your Reformation. All this time, all the visible Guides or Prelates of the Church were led, and did lead into opinions contrary to the Tenets of your Church. But all this time the spirit of Truth did abide with them, guiding them into all Truth. Therefore the opinions contrary to your Tenets were true, and not errors. If he should be with your Prelats beginning this last age to hold contrary to the Prelats of the last thousand years) he should be with those who teach contradictions in points of belief, opposite to the former belief. Behold a clear reason why I appropriate [Page 340] this promise to our Bishops and Church, and not to yours, the Holy Ghost could not teach those guides of the Church forever, who for a vast long time of many ages were not in the World. Shew me a succession in all Ages of the guides or lawful Pastors of any Church houlding your Texts in points differing from ours, and then I must labour to find a reason why I say the Holy Ghost, ever since Christs time, guided the lawful Pastors of our Church into all truth, rather then the lawful Pastors of your Church, which Pastors had no being in the Church or world and consequently no capacity to be guided into all truth.
31 A Sixth Text to prove this assistance to be extended to infallibility is 4 Ephes. whence appeareth that the end and intention of Christ in giving us (who were visible in all ages) Doctors and Pastors for all ages was such an end, and such an intention, as could not be compassed by such Doctors and Pastors as might lead us into circumvention of errour, even then when they where assembled together to deliver the truth from their highest tribunal in a General Council How pittifully would the Saints be consummated by such Doctors? How pittifully would the work of the Ministry be performed, how pittifully would the Body of Christ be edified by such Doctors and Pastors. Lastly how impossible would it be for us by the having of such doctors, and Pastors that wee now (provided of such guides) be not children wavering and carried about with the wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, in circumvention of error. You see St. Paul affirms the Doctors and Pastors which are given unto us, to be given for this end (and consequently sufficiently assisted to the same) that we may securely rest in their doctrine, which we may not do in any erroneous doctrine, be the errour little or great. For it were a ridiculous thing to say, we were to rest circumvented in error, least we should fall into circumvention of error. The assistance therefore is such as preserves from all error, and such an assistance was proportionable to Gods intention of [Page 341] Securing us from having reason to waver or to be changing, and changing, so to cure some curable errors, with which we feared to be circumvented, whereas by the unanimous doctrine of these Doctors and Pastors, God intended to preserve us sufficiently from ever falling into circumvention of errour.
32. A seventh Text to prove the assistance of the Holy Ghost given to the Church, to be extended to infallibility is taken from Esay chap. 56. verse 20. and 21. where God speaketh of the Church of Christ, to which after his coming many of the Jewes were to unite themselves (according to the interpretation of Saint Paul 18. Romans verse 26. Thus God by Esay, The redeemer shall come to Sion and unto them who by uniting themselves to Christs Church) shall turne from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. Note here that the words which our Lord is going to say are spoken to the visible Church, to wit, that Church to which rhe Jewes did unite themselves being baptized in it, instructed in it, governed by it, &c. Now our Lord to this Church visibly Baptizing, instructing, governing, &c. saith, As for me, this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord, My spirit that is upon thee, and my words, (free from errour in all points great and little) which I have put in thy mouth, (that mouth by which thou visibly dost teach all Nations) shall not depart out of (this) thy mouth. Nor out of the mouth of thy seed, Nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever. Behold, here the Spirit of Truth entailed upon the Church for all Ages, never departing from her mouth, Nor the mouth of her seeds seed, which not departing from the mouth (by which visibly she teacheth, instructeth, and governeth,) sheweth this Spirit entayled upon the Church as Visible and not as Invisible as you would have it. And this not departing of his Spirit from her Mouth, is a no lesse [Page 342] cleare, then eloquent expression of her infallibility in her doctrine, for Gods Spirit or Word is not in a Mouth teaching error. Aga [...]n, a promise of not departing from her mouth from thenceforth and for ever, maketh it evident that this last thousand yeares there was some visible Church, whose Prelates and Pastors did shew their Heads, and open their Mouthes, in teaching truth. And yet what was visibly taught all this while, was (in all points debated between you and us) opposit to you. By the way note how unjustly you not long since taxed those of coming neer blasphemy, who said that God did speak to us and teach us by his Church. What mean these words, My Words shall not depart out of thy Mouth, Nor out of the Mouth of thy seed, nor of thy seeds seed?
33 Hence (for an Eight Text) I may well alledge what this Prophet infers from hence in the Next Chapter, where he triumpheth in the Church thus teaching all Nations, and there he addeth, For the nation and Kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish, verse 12. Because if this Church should ever at any time fall to teach error, Nations should do well, and should further their salvation by forsaking her erring, as the Protestants say, they did. And note how these words clearly shew that the Scripture speaketh of the Church visible, which Nations and Kingdomes may find out, and serve and must perish, like publicans and Heathens, if they doe not serve, and obey: she is therefore secured from error. Hence verse 20. Thy sun shall no more goe down, Neither shall the Moon withdraw it selfe, For the Lord shall be thine everlasting light and the daies of thy Mourning shall be ended. And in the next chapter to the Sons of this Church he promiseth, That everlasting Joy shall be unto them verse 7. And in the next chapter last verse. Thou shalt be called, sought out a City not forsaken. Had this Church been forsaken and left in such errors as are imputed to the Roman Church, Christ had not been an Everlasting light to here whom he had left in such [Page 343] darknes for a thousand yeares, and the dayes of her mourning had been these full thousand yeares, short of the end of her mourning. And there had been no reason why in such grosse errours she should (to Gods comfort) be sought for and a City not forsaken. These words I am sure are spoke of a visible Church, sought for, and found out, because inhabited and not forsaken, your invisiible Church was so desolate, that no body can tell where it was. And in this sense it is a City still sought for, but never to be found for a thousand yeares. Or else tell me where?
34 For a ninth Text (letting all these last Texts of Esay passe as for one) I alledged that of Daniel 2.44. In the daies of those Kingdoms the God of Heaven shall raise up a Kingdome, which shall not be dispersed, and his Kingdome shall not be delivered to another people. And that we might know that he speaketh here of the kingdome of Christ, which should be visible to us all, there is added a circumstance which must needs make it most visible, to wit. And it shall break in peices and consume all those (Idolatrous) Kingdomes and it shall stand for ever. Now if this true Church of Christ, which so visibly hath broken in pieces and quite abolished all Idolatrous Kingdomes, be so visibly to stand for ever, then this visible Church cannot be said, for this last 2000. year to have been faln; As it must needs be said of all visible Churches, which have bin these last thousand years for besides the Roman Church you will not find one visible Church which hath not faln this time into confessed heresie; therefore to verifie these words, you must say that the Roman Church did not fall, that so you may find Christ a visible Church which did stand for ever. And thus also we shall literally expound what the Angel Gabriel said of Christ, And he shall reign in the house of Iacob for ever Luke 1.33. This Roman Church then is the Church which hath stood ever since Christs time. Whence it is manifest that it did not fal either into idolatry (as you intimate hereafter when you reply to this place of Daniel, nor [Page 344] when it proclaim'd it self to have an infallible tribunal, by which all Controversies are to be truly decided, for erecting which tribunal you Page 22. say shee is in peril of treason against God the judge, in setting up another judge in the consciences of men. And againe Pa. 106. That for pretending to infallibility she is highly presumptious and in this more then an usurper committing an insolent usurpation of the prerogative which belongeth only to God and Scripture. And P. 23. you hold this Infallibility as destructive to soules as uncertainty of true Religion, Nay (say you) uncertainty may be helped but infallibility hath no remedy. Surely if the Church should have universally faln into uncertainty of true belief, it should no longer have been the standing Kingdom of Christ which shall stand for ever. But it had been a multitude faln into the want of that faith, the want of which had put it in a state in which it had been impossible to please God. For uncertainty in faith is wholy inconsistent with an infallible assent, but all divine faith consisteth in an infallible Assent. Therefore where there is uncertainty, there is no divine faith at all without which it is impossible to please God, as St. Paul saith you put the Roman Church faln (even by this one fall) into a worse condition. Can a Church in this condition be that Church raised in Christ and spread over the world destroying all Idolatrous Kingdoms by her visible preachers and teachers, succeeding with a visible succession one to another, administring visible sacraments, and by her visible decrees and such like visible Acts, destroying all Idolatrous Kingdoms and raigning in their place visibly, and thus in the light of the world verifying Daniels prophecy by standing for ever in quality of a kingdome. Yet if the Roman Church be not this Church, find me out (if you can) a visible Church, (for so many visible Acts convince that the Church verifying these words must be visible) distinct from the Roman, and agreeing with yours in the points debated between us, what you hereafter adde concerning this place of Daniel, and my [Page 345] first place out of Esay, I shall answer in its place. Here I thought good to put all these nine Texts of Scripture together that their force might the better appear.
35 This being done I must again put you in mind that according to your doctrine, Scripture alone is able by clear Texts to decide all Controversies according to truth, This Controversie of the fallibility, or infallibility of the Church erected by Christ, is one of the most important Controversies that can be raised in the Church. Now you (who pretend this Controversy to be decided for you against me by clear Texts of Scripture) are obliged by clearer Texts, then all these are put together, to prove that Christs visible Church is fallible, I say Christs visible Church, for all my Texts speak of that, and not of the Synagogue, and therefore the Texts you bring must be concerning Christs Church. And you must bring Texts and not discourses, or else you decide not the Controversy by the sentence of the judge to which only you appeal. Observe these few things and give me these Texts, and I here give you free leave to proclaim me quite vanquished, and driven out of the field. And by this you will see that we adhere not therefore to the defence of the Churches Tribunal, because we fear to be tried by Scripture, but because upon trial made by Scripture, her Tribunal is proved infallible and in all things to be obeyed by us.
36. What occurreth next is, to justifie my selfe from the false slander with which you charge me of corrupting the Text in St. Austin Lib. de Utilitate credendi Cap. 19. Sir if I should doe as you did, that is, if I should only regard that Edition of St. Austin which I have, I should not only justifie my selfe but condemne you of corrupting this place. Now I onely charge the Edition which you used, of corruption, yea of such corruption that a man could not but suspect it who would read the context with his perfect sences about him. For St. Austin [Page 346] in his 14. Chapter, having said that he first believed, moved by the authority of the Catholick Church, which there he sheweth to have been done by him upon good reason; he cometh in the 51 Chapter to presse his adversaries to the easiest way of freeing themselves from errour by yeilding to the authority of the same Church. And then in his Sixteenth Chapter he urgeth the wholesomnesse of following this authority. Here come in those words which I cited, to wit, for if the divine providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs, in vain would Sollicitude be about Religion. But if both the very beauty of all things and our inward conscience doth both publickely and privately exhort us to seek out and serve God, we are not to dispair that there is some authority appointed by the same God, on which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God. My adversary wil needs read these last words thus. On which authority we relying as on an assured step may be lifted up to God. Velut gradu incerto innitentes attolluram ad Deum. As if an unassured or an uncertain step could help to lift us up to God, and were a thing to be relied upon to this end, and given us as a help by God to this end, that we may rely upon it, and we being so well provided of uncertainty in the authority appointed by God for us, ought nor to despair of coming by this authority to the certain truth. Is not this perfect and compleat non-sense. And can you think in earnest that here you have reason to tell me that the scope of St. Austins discourse may discover my corrupting his Text? Doth it not evidently discover the corruption of your Frobeniā Edition, An. 1569. wch would needs read, Gradu incerto innitentes attellamur ad Deum, whereas other Editions read gradu certo innitentes even the Edition of Erasmus, whose judgement yours use to esteem most accurate. Yea, he in the beginning of his Edition professeth to put down such a Note as this is [] when he varieth from the Frobenian Edition, and yet here he putteth no such note in his Paris Edition, Anno 1555. which Edition of Erasmus, is ancienter then yours. So that your Frobenian Edition corruptedly [Page 347] differeth in this place from that ancienter Frobenian Edition, of which Erasmus made mention a dozen years before yours was printed. Neither can you make any thing like sense of S. Austins words by reading them as you cited them; that by the authority appointed by God we should as by an uncertain step be lifted up to God. So that here you may easily perceive how little reason you had to carp at infallibility. And again, you had as litle reason to put me in mind that one part of that authority of which St. Austin here speaketh is drawn from the miracles which Christ did. Sir, do these miracles make this authority to be relied upon, as upon an unassured step, or as upon an assured step to lift us up to God. Now Sir, how shal you ever be able to secure me that you can know, and infallibly know, corrupted Scripture from uncorrupted, when I see this your talent in knowing corruptions so deficient, as I have here shewed it to be, even when you are so confident of it that you charge your adversary of corruption, which had you not done, he had now made no use of this place so clear to his purpose. But he must needs now expect a better answer from you to this place.
37. In my 24. I intreat you not to explicate the places which I had above alledged for the Churches infallibility,Of my 24. [...]h. Number.as if they were to be understood so as onely to be true when the Church judgeth conformably to Scripture; for even in that sence the devil himselfe (father of Lyes) is infallible, so long as he teacheth conformable to Scripture, and the gates of hell cannot by errour prevail against the devil of Hell. Yea, as long as he doth this, he will be the pillar and ground of Truth, that is subordinately as you speak of the Church, to wit, so far as either of them rely on the written word. You answer first, that we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil, but we are enjoyned to consult with the Church of God. I answer, that this hinders not his being infallible as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture. And I am glad to see you acknowledge a command to consult with the Church, for sure I am that this must be understood of consulting with a visible Church and visible in all [Page 348] Ages. For people were in all ages to obey this command of consulting with her. But it is impossible in any age to consult with an invisible Church. Therefore there was in all ages a true visible Church. Secondly, you say we have alwayes cause to suspect the Divel. I answer this hinders not his being truly infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scripture. In your third answer you seem to make the divel and the Church agree, for you neither believe the divel in point of truth upon his authority, nor the Church to speak truth upon her authority, wherefore for all you have said as yet, the divel may as well be the pillar and ground of truth as the Church, though I confesse freely, it is not his office to be so.
Again though you be not moved to think that the divel saith to be true, yet this hinders not his speaking as true as the Church doth, as long as he speaketh conformable to Scripture. And though I grant that you may in some respect make more account of what the Church saith for her authority, then of what the devil saith upon his authority; yet standing still in our case, which supposeth the divel de facto to deliver what is conformable to Scripture, you (who refuse to give an infallible assent to what the Church saith at all times but when you see that which she saith to be conformable to Scripture) you I say, must never build this assent as infallible more upon the Church then upon the divel, to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture. But whilst you are so busie in giving so many answers to what I said about the divel, you smother up that which clearly overthroweth the reply of you and yours, who say we must follow the Church only so far as we see her follow Scripture. For I shewed that those who could not see at all how far the Church followed Scripture, were bound to follow that Church for the first two thousand yeares of the world, which were before all Scripture, or before what was known to be the Scripture in substance, or before it [Page 349] were known whether there should be any Scripture or no. So how could those many barbarous Nations, who never having seen the Scripture did truly believe, (as S. Ireneus testifies) what was taught them by the Church, though they could not possibly see how far that which was taught them, and that which they believed, did agree with the Scripture which they had never seen.
38. Your two next paragraphs contend to take from me two of my former texts cited for the infallibility of the Church, by expounding those texts not to speak of the visible Church. But I have shewed the contrary concerning them both. Concerning that out of Daniel I did shew this even now Num. 34. Concerning that out of Esay I shewed it Num. 32. And 33. As for all additional testimonies out of Fathers you know why I resolve to passe them.Of my 25th. and 26th. Number. And so together with them I must let passe even that maine and convincing place of St. Austin: this supposed, I have ended all which belongeth to this Chapter.
The fifth Chapter. The Church which is our Judge, and Infallible, is the Roman Church.
ALL that I am to prove here is,Of my 27th. Numb. that upon Supposition that it is now made good that the Church is our judge in all Controversies and also that it is made good that she is infallible, that all this can be verified of no other Church then the Roman. Whence it followeth, that whosoever will say any thing against that which I did undertake to prove in this part of my discourse, must argue against me not by denying some Church to be judge of Controversies and infallible, but admitting that for truth, he must prove that I [Page 350] without reason claim this right of judicature, and this infallibility for the Roman Church, and onely for the Roman, still understanding by the Roman Church, all Churches which submit themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to their supreme Pastor.
2 That then which remaineth here to be proved I did prove and still do prove thus, the Protestant Church and all other Churches different from the Roman, do judge themselves, acknowledge themselves, declare and professe themselves, to be fallible, and that according to infallible Scripture. If then any of these Churches be infallible (in what they judge, and declare for truth grounded in Scripture) they are infallible in this their judging and delaring themselves to be fallible. Therefore infallibly they are fallible. Therefore, upon supposition that it hath been formerly proved that some Church is judge of Controversies, and Infallible, and it being by the former argument demonstratively proved that neither the Protestant Church, nor any Church different from the Roman can be judge of Controversies and infallible, it evidently followes that only the Roman Church is this judge and is infallible as she teacheth her selfe to be. Here you exclaim at my abusing others by ratiocinations, which notwithstanding, I confidently say you could not, nor cannot solve. Therefore prehaps you are pleased to wonder and then gibe at my argument, as if I only argued thus. The Roman Church claimeth infallibility, therefore by claiming of it she hath right to it. This argument you may freely scoff at, it is nothing like mine. And yet in undoing this fond argument you only busie your selfe and say nothing, to that wch I pressed and still presse, that the Church which is apointed by God for infallible judge of Controversies, cannot possible be any of those Churches which teach themselves not to be this infallible judge. It had bin very easie to have understood this right and not to make me say, that only laying claim to infallibility is a sufficient proof of infallibility. It is a very different thing to say, He that must [Page 351] be a Minister must be a Man and not a Woman, and to say, such an one must needs be a Minister because he is a man and not a Woman. So it is one thing to say, the Church which is the infallible judge must be a Church, judging and teaching her selfe to be infallible and cannot be a Church which judgeth and teaches her selfe fallible; And another thing to say, that that Church is infallibly judge which teacheth her selfe to be so. This I said not, but I said, that Church that must be infallible must not want this condition, and therefore no Church teaching her selfe (even according to Scripture) to be fallible, can truly be this infallible judge. Against my argument truly related, you have not one word, without you think you have answered me by saying, that no Church of Christ is infallible, and therefore not the Roman. But Sir did not you alwayes hitherto still importunely call upon me to prove that even upon supposition, that the Church was our judge and Infallible, that these great prerogatives belonged to the Church of Rome. You bid me still prove this even standing upon the supposition, that some Church was judge and infallible. Is it then any thing like a Scholar like answer to return no other answer to my argument but by now saying the supposition is not true, the truth of which, though allowed, you contended to be nothing to my purpose. If you will grant me that, if any Church be judge of Controversies and infallible, this is our Church I have done. Neither intend I any thing else in this chapter.
3 You bring an argument to prove our Church fallible because either it erred in admitting, or in rejecting the Millenary opinion before admitted. Sir I call upon you to prove that ever our infallible Judge (that is the supreme Pastor of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council) did admit of the Millinary opinion. If this be not done you prove not our Iudge to be fallible and this I am sure can never be proved. Yea it cannot be proved that the Church diffused or Universal, did at any one age unanimously admit of this doctrine for a point of faith. For when this [Page 352] opinion began to get much ground, divers of the Fathers did oppose it. Even S. Justin (Dialogo cum Triphone circa medium) whom yours use so commonly to alledge for this opinion, in plain words telleth you, Multos, qui purae piaeque sunt Christianorum sententia hoc non agnoscere. That many (note the word many) who are of a pure and pious Christian opinion do not acknowledge this. And your own learned Doctor Ha in bis view of &c. Page 87. 88, 89. doth prove the weaknes of that place in St. Iustin not to conclude any thing against Catholike Tradition. Nicephorus will tell you L. 3. C. 21. that Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was the first author of this opinion. The traditions of the Church have no first authors but the Apostles.
Of my 28th. Number.Wherefore by all you have hitherto said, my Argument remaineth unanswered and is really unanswerable the supposition being admitted upon which it is spoken. For tell me whether any Church, which teacheth her self to be fallible can be truely infallible. If any such Church can be infallible, and all Churches be such but the Roman, then Christ can have no Church upon Earth to be our infallible Judge but the Roman. Wherefore no tollerable Answer being yet given to this argument, I will be as good as my word when I said in this Number, That this being a demonstration I should hold my self bound to say no more until this argument were answered. Here then I end: yet when you shall have solved this argument, I shal be ready to make good my promise concerning what I said I could and would shew of the Roman Church to soon as I should see this argument answered.
An Answer to your last Paper.
TItulus Libri saepe legendus est, as the Rule is, the Title of a Book is often to be read; as if it were not to be censured: yet in point of controversie, it may be considered. And surely your Title [How in these times, in which there be so many Religions, the true Religion may certainly be found out] might be found peccant: For, first it supposeth that which is false; that every difference makes a new Religion. 2. It doth not suppose that which is true; that there are many differences amongst your selves. And thirdly, it doth, in a sort, infer that which is true and false together, and so a contradiction; that there are many Religions, and yet but one. And so we need say no more of it; for thus it should destroy it self.
As for the dedication of the Paper to the Reader, what do you mean? would you have me onely a Reader of it, as if I could not, or would not, make any return to it? Or do you, as I may conceive, intend it for publick use? We are agreed; let the world have it and judge.
In your first and second Paragraphs of your Preface to the last, you give a repetitional account of your former Treatise, and of the order of it, which you substrate to the order of your Answer to my Answer of that Treatise, and to the Application of it. [Page 352] [...] [Page 513] [...] [Page 514] Your order simply affirmes nothing: therefore we say nothing to it.
In the third Par. You excuse your not making a sixth chapter to answer my answer to your Conclusion, and to some personall debates which concerne not the maine cause. The Excuse shall passe with me; who, in regard of personal quarrels, am as ready to neglect my self, as he would have me. And surely if we did not seek our selves in the search of truth, we should lesse lose our selves and finde truth sooner.
So then all I have to do is to answer your five chapters, wherein you say you answer my reply to your Treatise.
And in the first chap. you include the defence of your preface to the former Treatise.
My first words did intimate, you say; that I did feare lest my silence should make you seem to your self or others to have got the victory, you returne; your reply is most welcome in this respect, that it doth more helpe me than your silence could. Not to seem to have got but really to get that victory which I desire not to my self but to truth. For the examination of your reply will serve for a touchstone to my Arguments. As to this answer of yours I have no minde to oppose much. Only I am well assured that you make the best advantage you can of your adversaries silence. And if you can make better advantage of any thing I have written to confirme you then by my silence, my words are in your power unto all reasonable use; let them have their natural liberty to speak no more than they are willing to. Do not straine or wrest them for your turne. For so you will alter the property of them and make them yours.
But whereas you say, the examination of your Reply [Page 515] will serve for a touchstone to my arguments, you will give me leave to make use also of the words, and I shall be of that opinion in this sense of mine, that, if you consider it well, it will indeed be a touchstone to prove your argument, not to be solid and true mettall. All is not gold that glisters.
You say I will follow you as you desire step after step & [...]. Ans. If you do, this is the first time you have done so. Your first did not. Your second did not. If this does, you will be more punctual in the dispute than your party is wont to be. And whether so or not we shall see in the conclusion. And also then you wrong your self in calling this paper also a Treatise.
Par. 2. To shew the necessity of treating the matter I had undertaken I said, that such a manner of reading the Scripture as is permitted by you to all sorts of people with so unlimited a license to interpret them according to their own private judgement of discretion is a thing most apt to cause a numberlesse number of sects and heresies.
Ans. Consider with your self whether you deale honestly with us in reporting our opinion in this matter. Do I, or any of us, give such unlimited license to interpret them according to their own private judgment or discretion?
But this was necessary for your turn, that so you might make your argument better: and therefore, when you saw by my answer that your reading of the Scripture freely permitted to the people is not of it self guilty of those effects, you now add that which is false, that we give such unlimited license to all sorts of people to interpret the Scripture according▪ to their private judgement of discretion. Now chuse you which you will stand to; that in your Treatise, or this in the answer, and then put it into form of discourse; and we [Page 516] answer you. If you say, as in the Treatise, that if there were a free permitting of the use of the Bible to all sorts of people in their mother tongue, it would not fail, but multitudes of new sects and heresies would grow up; and as for the peoples manners, they would daily grow worse and worse: then we deny your proposition, as before, understanding it in way of cause, or if you will hold it of us in this answer, that we do freely permit to all sorts of people to interpret the Scripture accor-to their private judgement of discretion, we deny your assumption, for though we allow the judgement of private discretion negatively, that nothing should be obtruded upon us for point of faith which we see not in our judgment of discretion to be agreeable to Scripture: yet do we not give any license to any positively to interpret according to the judgement of private discretion, but according to the analogy of faith, and also we commend to them the perusal of the judgment of others, Fathers and Doctors, in points of difficulty, private judgment herein makes not the interpretation; but is to make consent to it.
2. we can distinguish of your predicate here [is a thing most apt to cause a numberlesse number of sects and heresies] There is a double aptitude either in the nature of the thing, or by accident of our corruption. The former is denied in the case, the latter makes no prejudice. For so Scholars should not read the Bible neither, because it gives occasion of differences and the Gospell should be taken away for feare of bad accidents. Sapiens non curat de accidentalibus.
But you prove your supposition and first a priori thus you permitt any Artificer who can reach to take the Bible into his hand and to take it for his sole and only Judge of all necessary controversies, &c. along unto these words falling into heresie, inclusively. Ans. If this your discourse a priori? To it we [Page 517] might say much: first, there is somewhat in 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 [Page 518] 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 [Page 519] 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. [Page 520] 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 b [...]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 might gaine more credit to their error▪ by holinesse of life as Socinus and others.
You come then to refute my arguments. First it is so far from being contrary from that text, you err, not knowing the Scriptures, that it is most agreeable to it. For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures, as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them. And is this a good refutation? And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use, they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures, which they mis-interpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade, was the knowledge of [Page 521] the Scriptures the cause of their error? no: that is contrary to our Saviour, who said, you err, not knowing the Scriptures: was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should mis-interpret them? no; for then that will, by a recideration, come into the same inconvenience; for then the knowledge will be a certain mean (at least in a large sense) of this mis-interpretation. And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture, that so we may not err. 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do, that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of mis-interpretation, therefore the people should not commonly use them? is this symbolicall to the sense of our Saviour's words, you err, not knowing the Scriptures? 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their mis-interpretation: then he would have them know the Scriptures better, not have the people deprived of them. 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose. 1. An habituall Knowledge, which is chiefly of the Principles in Scripture; this they had in their mind. Then there is an actuall Knowledge, which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practise. They were wanting it seems in the later; in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses, which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection. They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text, and so not have erred. Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better. The saying of the Jew is good. He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one. The oftner we read it, especially the Bible, the more we see in it.
But you bring a corroboration of your answer, specially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority [Page 522] of the Church if they stand in their way. Sir, this will not do. 1. We licence them not to crosse all Antiquity, & we need not give them such a direction, and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them. We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. [...]. Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors. 2. They cannot intend surely the crossing of all Antiquity; for certainly they do not know all Antiquity; yea, if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality, there are few of your own learned men that know it. And therefore if any of their interpretations doth crosse antiquity, it doth but [...] it is but by accident. And in things necessary they are not so like to do so. 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition, that the Consent of the Fathers (supposed) makes an argument of Divine Faith, therefore though we love their company, yet we desire to see our way. But object to us nothing but that which is proper. How shall your men know that what they hold doth not crosse all Antiquity? The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge. Yea some of yours say, omnes Patres sic, ego autem non sic.
You go on. And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture, &c. unto secondly. Ans. You make your self sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge. You mean it by way of a Science, as Physick: we do not say that Trades-men make any knowledge of Divinity so, as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it: no, but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use, although they do not teach others. As if there were plain principles of Physick in our language; we might make use [Page 523] them for our selves, as Tiberius said, after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physitian, you are deceived then, or would deceive in the fallacie of consequent, though all Science be knowledge, all knowledge is not Science; for knowledge is more generall and therefore surely of it self doth not inferre the most perfect species.
You say, secondly, you in vaine object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation, &c. unto thirdly; wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss; namely, not as they are interpreted by every giddy fansie, but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by orall tradition.
Ans. [...]; what will you get by this answer? If you understand by orall tradition such doctrines of the Gospell which were first preached, afterwards written, we grant you the use of such orall traditions: but this boots you not; for you must have traditions in point of faith, besides what is written: and such we deny unto you that Timothy had. And I prove my deniall by your own words. For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture? you speake of his understanding the Scripture by tradition: tradition, of proper name, is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it: and how can he, by that which is different in matter, understand the Scripture? If you mean by orall Traditions, some traditive interpretations (as learned men call them) of the more difficult passages of Scripture, this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy: but this is nothing to us, unlesse you can tell us certainly how many and what they are. If there were such, and lost, then your Church is lost. 2. Againe, we allow no giddy fansie to define the sense of Scripture; but in things necessary and plain [Page 524] their own knowledge may be sufficient, and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sence thereof as in the choice of your Religion.
But thirdly by your own words, I will conclude against you a fortiori; for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise, who was a Teacher, much more others: since, as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm, there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others. If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation, then one of the People much more, who, according 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 [Page 525] 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 [Page 526] 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 [Page 527] 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 infallibilitie were guiltie of heresie and bad manners? and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius. So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes: and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversarie [Page 528] inconveniences of his principles, which are common to yours. And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you.
The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus; you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause, or the cause without which heresie and bad manners do not arise. I answered in defence of Scripture, this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them, since heresie and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infalibility is placed, and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home. All the causality you can pretend of heresie and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures, is through mis-interpretation of them; is it not? yea? is it so? then how come those who are infalible to be hereticks and bad? You had best take away Scripture from all, that so there may be no heresie.
Well, it seems you now begin to bethink your self that heresie and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture, as we understand them quarto modo; but as consequents, or inseparable accidents wch are in a larger sense as properties, namely, as omni sed non soli; so I construe your last words [if I should grant all, what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life] &c. you must then allow us to tell you, that you are somewhat disposed to go hence, and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture, as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture. And let me come up a little more closely to you; I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say, that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it [in difficult places] as they judged fit, and therefore were of bad life: [Page 529] if not then, is it not proprium omni? And so for, heresie, you cannot say, that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or mis-interpreted it unto heresie, for how then could he of your Church say, si fides in doctos solos caderet, nihil esset, occuperius Deo? Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church? Did they? But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto, for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object, though not in the reason: but implicit is divided against knowledge: and if you say, that it knows the Church which it doth believe, it will come to this, that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church; and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else, will this prove good Divinity? Or will good Divinity prove this? And besides, it is not implicit faith which believes the Church, but explicit; for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged. Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all, though not all the cause of heresie; for some have got salvation by it; and therefore were no hereticks, unless you will say, they might have salvation and be hereticks too. If you will say it, then why would you perswade our people that there is no salvation for us hereticks? Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation; for although all Christians but you, according to your Principles, are hereticks, yet they may be saved because hereticks may be saved. However we may have faith by reading of Scripture; and if faith, then we are not hereticks, by Knots argumentation; because he would have heresie destroy all faith. But you have reason to say that other ways of heresie there may be besides being conversant in Scripture: for you know that hereticks have pleaded Antiquity, therefore by your Logick, [Page 530] you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith.
Whereas you say, Again, had not David who was a Murtherer and an Adulterer; had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infalible assistance of the Holy Ghost, in writing severall parts of the holy Scripture?
Sir, I thank you for helping your weak Adversary; for this makes for me, and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture, that heresie and badnesse were accidentall at most to the use of Scripture, because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof. You prove now, by other examples, the possibility thereof. The sense of the discourse, as to badnesse of life, is this. If bad manners be competible to those who are accounted infallible, then the mis-interpretation of Scripture, by the ignorance of the people, is not the cause of bad maners, but verum prius; and now you, not denying it to be true of your Pope, would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture. But I hope you meane to reflect this towards the proof of infalibility to be consistent with a lewd life. And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infalibility in rebus fidei, and not in point of action. I deny not the distinction in the notion of it, but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope. I do acknowledge him in one part of it, falible, in the latter; but you must prove him infalible in the former, as David and Solomon was: and we have done. We are agreed in the Thesis, that there may be infalibility of faith where there is lewdness of life, but we differ in the Hypothesis, as you intend it; not that the Pope may not be nought in life: but that he is not infalible in defining points of faith or manners.
But you would avoid the danger of my former answer; therefore you say, But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope: I (in my twenty [Page 531] first number) desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget. I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope, defining with a lawfull Councell, cannot erre. How then doth the belief or faith of a Church (I speake not of private mens private opinions) invest infalibility in a person hereticall or bad?
So then let my answer be put into this forme. Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresie and bad manners. Liberius was (according to you) infalible; therefore the Subject of infalibility may be an heretick, and guiltie of bad manners, and consequently heresie and bad life are not to be imputed to the mis-interpretation of Scripture. Before you graunted me the Conclusion, that heresie and bad life may come in otherwise; and therefore we cannot fasten them upon the mis-interpretation of Scripture: and now you denie to me the Assumption, and you say the Church doth not invest infalibility in the Pope, but as defining with a lawfull Councell, generall you meane.
Well then, Liberius is not defended in the point of subscription as neither you nor Bellarmin can defend him: but yet you defend the Roman infalibility in faith; because, as you say, he was not the Subject of it. Rather than infalibilitie should be disparaged, the Pope shall be degraded from his infalibilitie.
This you say here occasionally, to denie unto me the use of this instance: but this is not the seat of the matter; therefore we shall say here no more than is necessarie. And first you had no great cause here to except against the assumption, since you grant the consequence of the Conclusion. 2. You should consider what you say, that the Pope of himself is not the Subject of infalibilitie, for by this you raise a war against you of your Roman Catholicks, which did [Page 532] think they knew the sense of the Roman faith, as well as you; for sure you are not more than a private Doctor. All the Canonists you know are against you, and the Jesuites are against you, particularly Bellarmin in his 2 b. de Concil. Autor 15. Ch. Where he maintaines this position, that the Pope is the Head of the whole Church. Where he hath this argument. Ecclesia universalis est unum corpus visibile, ergo habere debet unum Caput visibile. The universall Church is one visible Bodie; therefore it must have one visible Head, otherwise it will seem a Monster. But we cannot imagin any other but the Pope. Therefore the Pope is the Head of the whole Church simul together; so he, and that is of a Councill. And so it was determined in the Lateran Councill. Now where shall be the infalibilitie of the Church placed then but in the head of a councill? You are all wont to say, that the Church is infalible and a Councel infallible, and that the Pope is infalible. Now how will you com-promise the truth of these, but by saying the Church is infallible by the Councill and the Councell by the Pope. Then the Pope is the [...] of this infalibilitie. The Church formally taken is the multitude of the Faithfull; the Church representatively is the Councell, the Church virtually is the Pope. If the first subject receptive of Autority be the people, then do you lay the ground of the Independents: if the Councill, then the Pope hath his power from them, and so he is not the immediate Vicar of Christ, as Bell. in the former b. and ch. the 15.
And then also what will become of the condition of the primitive Church wherein there was so long a time before any General Councel? And then also in reason there should be a General standing Councel, if infalibility primarily flows from them. And have the Council a coordinate power, or subordinate? Which will [Page 533] you say? If coordinate, then to be sure the Pope is not Head of the Church, which you will be loath to say. If subordinate, then he is Head, and therefore infalibility must be subjected in him as Prince of the Church, unless you will divide infalibilitie from Authority. And if so, what Autoritie will there be of this infalibilitie?
But to go on. You tell me that those Doctors who are of that opinion that the Pope cannot erre in defining out of a general Councel, have other answers to your objections. So you put me to seek for their answers. You will not tell me who they are, nor what they are, nor where they are to be found. So then as to them my objections are proper; and their opinions may be as probable or more than yours, and it may seem more and therefore you will not condemne your own opinion by comparing with their answers: for if their Answers be solid, then your opinion is nought.
And then you are pleased to put me off thus, but that which you say is nothing against our faith, which no man (though never so little a French-man) will say obligeth us to hold the Pope infallible in defining out of a Generall Councell.
Ans. But that which you say is nothing against the faith of others which no man (though never so little a Courtier at Rome) will say obligeth them to hold the Pope not infalible in defining out of a general Councel. But why do you say our faith? Is your faith the same with the faith of the Roman Court? If not, then you divide from them. If so, then you must hold that none are true Catholicks (in your sense) but those who hold themselves such by Subjection to the Bishop of Rome; not as in a Councell, but simply to him. Yea, do you not think that you must necessarily be subject to the Laterean Councill which had the Popes consent: and that determined the thing expressissime, as Bel. in his second b. de Concil. cap. 13. Namely, that [Page 534] the Pope is above the Councel in a sense opposite to the Counsell of Constance and Basill who defined a Generall Councell above the Pope, and could infalibly determine without him. And if you say that Belarmin said, there some did doubt whether the Laterean Councell was a generall Councell, yet you must tell us your opinion what you hold of this Councel; yea, in his seventeenth ch. he defends it for a generall Councel and holds the point to be a decree concerning faith, but saies it is a doubt that the Councell did not decree it proprie ut decretum fide Catholicae tenendum; and therefore they that think otherwise are not properly hereticks, yet canot be excused from great temeritie. However I hope that Councel was more considerable with you than the judgment of private Doctors: yea also, than the French Catholicks. Yea, if you will be a right French-man in this opinion, you should hold that the Councell may be infalible reclamante Papa, (and this comes up to the stresse of the question) and therefore you do not speak determinately your opinion concerning the right state of the question: but you do latere post principia, in saying, that no French-man will say, you are obliged to hold the Pope infalible in defining out a Generall Councell. If you be a French-man in this, speak out and tell us your opinion, not conjunctively, but disjunctively, whether the Councell may be infalible without the Pope. But I commend your wisdome that you hold the safest way. For this Bellar. and all will say, that the Pope defining with a Councell cannot erre. But Bellarmin will also hold infalibilitie to be in the Pope, who is the head of the whole Church, even congregated, and that all Authoritie is in him, as the Monarch of the Church; but in this you are an Ephectick. So certainly you do agree amongst your selves about the Capital point of the Roman infalibilitie. As one said in another [Page 535] case of action: so may I say 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 [Page 536] 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 [Page 537] 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 wch 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 'twere 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 [Page 540] 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 [Page 541] 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,Z [...]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, [Page 542] 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 [Page 543] 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 [Page 544] support this most weighty Article of faith, that all the Scripture is the word of God.
[...]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 verba audiam, facta cum non videam? But if I might be so bold, doth not your term force referre to the act say, not to the Adverb [Page 546] again, as if you had no mind to be put upon expressing where the infalibilitie of the Church lies determinately? I suppose by your words, if you were let alone, you would expresse your selves in the safest way confusely, and in generall, that this infalibilitie is in the Church; whether diffused as you say, or representative, or virtuall. But it is very wisely determined by my Antagonist, that it is in the Pope, when he defines with a General Councel, that if the Pope be convinced of errour, it may be answered, he did not define with a Councell; if a Councel be deprehended of error, it may be said, the Pope did not confirm the decrees of the Councell. And yet the needle doth not stand full North; it trembles yet, therefore, in omnem eventum, it is said; when the Church diffused admitteth those definitions, her consent is more apparent.
May some questions be asked here, which may be in answer to this? when you say (immediately before) what proceeds from this authority we profess to proceed from the Authority of the Church: Does my Adversary mean that it proceeds from all the Authority of the Church? The Pope, with a lawful Councel, hath Authority in the Church, and what comes from them, comes from the Authoritie of the Church objective; because this Authority is for the use of the Church, and comes from the Authoritie of the Church subjective, because it comes from them who have Authoritie in the Church. But is the Pope and Councell the adequate subject of the Authoritie of the Church? If not, then infalibilitie must not be rested in them, without the consent of the Diffused Church. Secondly, If you meane the Pope and Councell agreeing, as you do, what becomes of the Church as long as they do disagree, as the fifth Generall Councell and Pope Vigilius did? [Page 547] Yea, that Councell obtained against the Pope; and is accounted by the Church Universall, in the number of the Generall Councels without the Pope; so that your opinion of the infalibility of the Church, to consist in a Pope defining with a Councel, is not sound, because, if it be infalible, it may be infalible without the Pope; since it hath vim Consilii without the Pope; yea, maugre the Pope. Thirdly, If Pope and Councel do consent, what if the diffused Church will not admit these definitions? what then? And I think I have reason to suspect, that such words are here cast out by my Adversary, as may insinuate as much as if the Church diffused might dissent. If they may discent, then they may discent from that which is infalible, or else infalibilitie must also include their consent. If they may not dissent, then what meane those words, when the Church diffused admitteth these definitions, her consent is yet more apparent? Me thinks somewhat is intimated here to such a purpose, as if the consent of the Church diffused (besides what is included in the Representative) should formally concurre to the making up of the complement of infalibilitie. So that the Church diffused, should not conduce to these infalible Decrees, by way of object, or as a passive principle, but also actively, by its consent, and this symbolizeth with Alphonsus de Castro, and others of your Church, who do settle this infalibilitie in the Acceptation of the Church Universall. And by their opinion, the Church diffused must have a freedome to dissent, or no power.
Par. 9. You say, as for your complaint, that your paper is not fully answered, I suppose, that if any thing of importance was left unanswered, you will tell me of it here, that I may here answer it.
Ans. Back reckonings are not wont to be very [Page 548] pleasant. But now it seems too late to returne an account of my Adversaries omissions, if he was my Adversary who now is under the reverence of the dead, and the protection of the grave. Otherwise I might say, there needs not be any particular account in an universall Negative. Materially, little is answered; and formaly, lesse. But a Treatise was sent me for an answer; yet in satisfaction to our own cause, and in respect to this demand, without dis-ingenuitie, I shall, it may be, now and then note some defects. And if any should think that the fight is over when one of the parties is dead; and that actio moritur cum persona, I shall onely say this, that this is no personal quarrel, but respects the common cause of truth, and yet also is it fit that I should returne an answer to a reply, as it would be accounted. And when this is done I have done.
And now comes my Adversarie to a vindication of the manner of answering me before. Concerning my manner of answering you, I must tell you, that St. Thomas, and the chief School Divines, for claritie and brevitie use to proceed thus. And then he gave me an account of their method, which is sufficiently known.
To which I answer, St. Thomas and the Schoolmen do use a very good method in the way of their discourse, pro and con; but our case is not the same. For my adversary was not now upon a problem, to dispute upon either part; but upon an opposition to that which is defended against him. They had not one particular Adversary against whom they were to direct all they said; but my Antagonist had. My Antagonist sent me a chalenge, which was fastned upon me; I answered in short: he replyed; I rejoined with an answer; and he returned a Treatise in termino. And therefore this will not serve. [Page 549] How doth he apply his positive Divinity to my oppositive? How is the Treatise applied to my distinctions? Do his positives fall flat against my denials? This way the Reader, to be sure, shall know what he saies, but not what I said, distinctly; because the Treatise is not punctually applied to my answer. Had Bellarmin produced his Adversaries Arguments no more fully than is done in that Treatise, there had not been such need of being so carefull, that in all Italy (as Sir Edwin Sandys notes) we should not finde a Bellarmin's Controversies, for fear any should peruse them, and not finde his Adversaries Arguments satisfactorily answered by him.
Therefore we may have leave to admire those words which come from the Treater, that your intention in rejoining by a Treatise was to have the most important matter, distinctly, orderly, and fully put down. And by having done so, I finde this great commoditie, that your Answer becomes more methodicall, and my reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous, and the Reader seeth still how orderly the Combate is.
I wonder much how this can be said [...] Could a Reply to my answer be more methodicall than in following me [...], as I followed the opponent? Or could my Answer again be more methodicall than in following a Reply, had it been proper and formall and pat? could the most important matter in debate betwixt us have been more distinctly, orderly and fully put down, than to have shewn from place to place, where I had not answered directly to the state of the question, or had hit the question, but did not sufficiently take off the Argument? And could his Reply be by this manner more clear and perspicuous, when it cannot appeare plainly how he took off my Answers, or answered [Page 550] to the matter or form of my occasionall Arguments? If this be an orderly Combate, then let us beat the aire, and that will be sufficient to beat an Adversary. Thus much of the first Chapter; which is no hard Chapter.
The Answer to the second Chapter. No necessity of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all should be bound simply to submit their assent.
Num. 1.MY Adversarie says here, that I go about to perswade him, that he is most likely to take up his Religion by prejudice
Ans. It seems he is pleased to forbeare any Answer to my retortion of his similitude, but he takes notice of my returning to him the greater probabilitie of prejudice in point of Religion, to be on their part. And he argues the contrary, because, being Recusants, upon this account are liable to lose two parts of their Estates, and what else we are, or shall be pleased to take from them, be it goods, libertie or life.
Ans. The prejudice on their part, was as I said, upon the opinion of the infalibilitie of their Church: so that I spake upon account of a religious interesse; and he answers me upon a civill account rather. This is [...]. And therefore this answer is not pertinent. And whereas he would seem to have good ground in Conscience for his Religion, for which he suffers so much; if he intends to vye [Page 551] with us in that kind, others of our Religion have suffered more from them. Surely he forgets the Marian days, wherein we dropped more blood than they have done.
And whereas he saies to me, — and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us.
As to this much might be said also without passion in the same kind. No man can take away more from us than our lives, one would think. Yes, Roman Catholicks would take away from us Heaven too. They had almost destroyed me upon earth, saith the Psalmist: But these will destroy us in heaven also. Secondly. If he who was mine Adversary was a Native of England, he was as much included in the order of his deprivation as I. Thirdly, I will say more yet, that some of his Religion have had more favour than we. Yea, yet more than this; one (whom I think he knows well) hath lost more in proportionall quantity (as Aquinas distinguisheth) than, any of them hath lost, who hath lost but two parts of three, and for Conscience too. Therefore that character which I gave the Romanist, he is to keep still untill he can prove it doth belong more to us. Certainly this is not proved not to belong to them, because they have suffered so much for their Religion; for we have suffered more and therefore it doth not belong to us, but them rather. But this suffering de se is easily known not to make an Argument: for unlesse our cause be good before we suffer, we have no cause to suffer at all. The saying is common, Causa non passio facit Martyrem. Fourthly. As for the present sufferings of the Papists, they are neither rightly charged either upon our Church, or upon our Kingdome; for there is not yet proved any legall consent of either to what they or others have suffered. Nay, fifthly, At the day of [Page 552] Judgement we shall see whether they are not more like to answer for what we have suffered, than we for what they have suffered in these times. So that while they do not see what is true against them, they will seem to see what is not true against us. As Tertullian said. But let us come to the matter.
To examine then your grounds in the second num.
Num. 2.That God hath made man to a supernaturall end, and to be attained by supernaturall meanes, we grant as Aquinas in the begining of of his sums. Take men indefinitely and confusely, without exclusion of Infants dying before Baptisme from Salvation possible; and those who are not compotes mentis; and we grant it.
And also that amongst those meanes, the first is true faith, and that according to his mercifull providence he hath provided us some way to this faith so easie, that all, if they pleased, might be brought to the knowledge of it; namely, exceptis excipiendis. And that the greater part of men are ignorant; yea, all naturally ignorant of the way to this supernaturall end, as Aquinas, because it is supernaturall; these things we yield to you. And that because the far greater part were ignorant, it beseemed his goodnesse (who is the lover of soules) to provide us such a way as that ignorant men should not be able (unlesse by wilful carelesnesse) to erre by it.
These things we do willingly yield. But we demurre upon your assumption, that this way should be the Church, as you interpret that of Isaiah the 35, where you say, the Prophet speakes of a path and a way which shall be so direct that fools cannot erre by it. Here we must stand a while and inquire what is the sense of this way.
And first I must note that you do not rightly render [Page 553] the words according to the Hebrew veritie. You say, and it shall be unto you a direct way, so that fools cannot erre. But it is not so in the text. But thus. [He shall be to them or with them walking the way, and fools shall not erre.] How is your Church like to be this way, when either you erre in not following it, or it doth erre in not right following the text. And you make it to be in the text a direct way, and so that fools cannot erre. Whereas it is rather [shall not erre,] which doth note so much infalibilitie as preservation from error. Now a negative of the act doth not prove a negative of the power; for then the Argument would be good, a non esse ad non posse. Therefore could my Adversary have proved, that the Church of Rome never erred, (which will never be proved) yet all is not yet whole; because infalibilitie is not yet proved by the not erring, but by an impossibilitie of erring. And if you may erre by carelesnesse, as before, then when were any sure of being right; for who can be sure he hath been as carefull as he should be? and therefore if this be the condition of not being deceived, yea, of infalibilitie, it is at least morally impossible, that any should be assured in their faith; because they may be wanting in their diligence; and so also may demerit a deprivation of Divine light.
My Adversary goes on. To elude this text you say, sure we may be, that the letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from Captivitie. Ans. And I see no reason to the contrary, if we consider several expressions in that place, which carry that scope; and also if we consider, that ordinarily at least when any thing is prophecied mystically of the Church Christian in the old Instrument, it is yet true in the letter of the Jews. And also thirdly, If we will take notice of the Septuagint, who render it, [Page 554] [...]. Those that are dispersed shall walke amongst them and not erre. And if you take this version to be the Septuagints, you may know they knew the text as well as the Latine Church.
Therefore this you would suppose and argue upon it. If he did direct the Jewish Church by a way so direct; that fools could not erre by it, there can be no good reason why he should be lesse carefull to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ.
Ans. My Adversary did not consider, that if it be understood of the Jewish Nation, it is not presently to be understood of the Jewish Church under that formality. It may be intended of them in the civill sense, and not in their Ecclesiasticall respect: and then we cannot argue from a temporall promise made to the Jew, to a Spirituall promise made to the Christian; though men are bold to make such accommodations. For then might we, of our own power, make a mystical sense of Scripture, wherein one thing should by Divine intention signifie another thing, this we cannot do; for then mysticall Divinitie should be Argumentative, which is denied even by the Pontificians.
Yet he goes on. Yet I thinke it is sure that this is not the true Interpretation. For when did the blinde see, the deaf hear, when did then God come himself and save us? Ans. It may be understood in the letter, and yet some expressions be hyperbolical; Yea, those expressions may be understood in the letter without any hyperbolicalnesse; as that those who never thought to see or heare of such a Redemption actual, should see and heare of it, should not onely heare of it, but see it. Secondly, When do we heare of vengance and recompence spoken of, ver 4. And drie ground and pools and habitation of Dragons [Page 555] and a place for reeds and rushes, spoken of, ver. the 7. to be in the Church Christian in a spirituall sense? Put one to the other: and which of them hath more moment? And to the other question, when did then God come himself and save us? We answer, this makes no Scruple of such an Interpretation of it to the Jew; neither because it is said he will come, nor because it is said he will save. Not the first nor the second, for the first is as ordinarie, as the terme save is usuall in the old Instrument for the temporall sense. Wherefore had Joshua his name from the same root? was he to be a spirituall Saviour? It is true he was typicall of Christ Jesus, but he was typicall by a temporal deliverance, yea, even the Greek word is sometimes used for a temporall salvation, in the new Testament, as Mat. 8.25. [...], Master save us, we perish, yea, the word [...], which commonly is rendered Saviour, when applied to Christ, is sometimes applied to God in the new Testament in a temporall sense, as is noted rationally by some Criticks; and particulary in that text some give an instance thereof. 1 Ep. to Tim. 4.10. Who is the Saviour of all, [...], especially of those that believe. He is the Saviour of all in a temporall sense, specially of those who believe. And thus Estius upon the text would carrie it, for which exposition he names Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Ambrosianus, Anselme. And he said positively, constat autem ex aliis Scripturae locis, &c. it is manifest also out of other places of Scripture, that the term of salvation is understood of the good things of the temporall life. So he upon the place.
He proceeds. And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way, as he said, I am the truth and the way; this self same Saviour said, I (who am this way) am with you to the consummation of the world; [Page 556] to wit, directing my Church the right way to Salvation: of which direction the Church now hath no lesse need than then. Ans. He supposeth that which is not granted, nor yet doth he go about to prove it, that it is to be understood by Divine intention of the Christian Church objective, This is not to be allowed, unlesse mysticall Divinity were in the nature of it argumentative. And my second answer to this text, wherein I referred it to the time of Christ in way of supposition, (if it were at all to be referred to the time of the Christian Church according to Isider, Clarius and St. Jerom.) he cannot well deny; but will argue from it, that the Church hath no lesse need of direction now than then. Ans. This Reply hath no strength of reason in it, for the foundation of Christianitie was then to be layd; which foundation personall was Christ, then it was to be built upon the foundation ministeriall, the Apostles also, as St. Paul speakes, Eph. 2.20. The new Testament was not then written, the propagation of the Gospell was not then made, Christian Doctrine was not universally received. And therefore then was there more need of infalible direction by Christ and his Apostles than now. And this really answereth your supposition, that such an infalible direction which by our Saviour was promised to the Church by the Apostles should alwaies continue in the Church; whereas it is not so necessary by necessitie of meane or end. And therefore, can we not make a demonstration of it a causa finali, because it is not necessary for the end of Salvation. Deus nec deficit in necessariis, nec abundat in superfluis, as he said: he is neither wanting in necessaries, nor is abundant in superfluities.
But this passage must be made good by them, or all is lost; therefore he goes on. And as we could [Page 557] not securely have put a limitation to those words of Joel (namely, concerning the powring out of the spirit) if St. Peter had not secured us of the true sense: so cannot you limit these words, not having the like warrant for it. Ans. So then first, Are those words of Joel limited? Yes, he confesseth it, and it is so plain by St. Peter in the second of the Acts, that it cannot be denied. Upon this confession we dispute. If those words of St. Peter be limited, then also the other text [Mat. 28. last. I am with you to the end of the world] is also limited. The consequence is, it may be, demanded. It is given thus. If the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not now to be expected as then, then can we not now pretend infalibilitie as then, because this is a speciall gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore have we no such need of an infalible limitation of that text by some other passages of Scripture; for interpretative, as we may speak, it is here done by St. Peter in a text of the same kind; so that although it doth not follow, that because one text is limited by Scripture, therefore we may limit another text; yet if the text in question be of the same kind, we do not limit it, but shew, that it is consequently limited. For secondly, All other extroardinary dispensations of the Holy Ghost are terminated in the event: no more Apostles, no more Prophets, no more Evangelists, no more gift of tongues; and why then should the gift of infalibilitie be held up? And why had not those (whom some of yours have spoke of) who were sent to preach the Gospell to the Heathens, the gift of tongues miraculously bestowed upon them, which might have been an argument and credit to their infalible Doctrine?
Yet he would continue power of miracles too: to this purpose he urgeth the text, those that believe shall do greater works than these. John. 14.12.
Ans. The subject of that proposition [those that believe] is considerable in the supposition, and in the opposition. In the supposition it is to be considered, how many it extends to; in the opposition, to what sort of men, whether Clergy or Laitie: consider it in the supposition, and we say, If it be extended to the present Church, we denie it: If it be not extended, it concludes nothing. Consider it in the opposition, as to what sort of men it belongs; then, if you take it inclusively to the Laitie, then by your Argument, infalibility should be in them. For so your discourse must run, those that do greater miracles than Christ, they may be infalible: then I assume, If you take it inclusively of the Laitie, the Laitie may do greater works than Christ, then they are infalible. And then how, or why do you state infalibilitie in the Pope and a Councel, which are two things that do not easily come together? And so the subject of the proposition must be taken, for it bears no respect to holy Orders, secundum rationem specialem; it is said, those that believe, not those of the Clergie which believe. So it hath it selfe indifferently to all sorts of men that do believe: and if my Adversary tooke it as of the Clergie, let me pay him in his own coin, in telling him, we may not limit it without a warrant; since, if all their Clergie did work miracles; yet all that do work miracles are not Clergie men.
Secondly, The Text is not ingenuously applied; for, it should not be applied to miracles, as he doth; but to workes, [...] there refers to [...]. Now all works are not miracles, though all miracles are said to be works. All Christ's works were not miracles: and Christ did not alwaies at all times work miracles. And therefore doth your Ferus upon the place note, that it is not said, semper & omni loco signa faciet, [Page 559] he shall alwaies and in all places do signes, nay, upon the same place, whereas some understand it of signs, he saies, this were hard, that no man should be a Believer, but he should do signs, quandoquidem nullus nostrum hoc tempore signum facit. Therefore he saith, some understand it not of workes of miracles, but of works of virtues.
And therefore the following words needed not to have beene added, If then this text was verified after our Saviours time, you cannot say it is onely spoken of his time, and that he did take away a way so necessary for us, his gifts being without repentance.
Ans. This is nothing to the purpose, though we grant, it did continue sometime after Christ, unless it be drawn down to the times of the present Church it is inconsequent to your use: Yea, those words of Christ [I am with you unto the end of the world,] may be verified without any infalibilitie in the Church resident in men; much more without infalibilitie in a particular Church: It is a plaine falacie of consequent, his being with them infalibly is a way of being with them; therefore every way of being with them is a way of infalibilitie. And this is sufficient to destroy the hopes which the Pontificians have of this Text. Besides that, if infalibilitie were by this Text continually promised to the Church universal, the Romanist cannot come in for any more than a part; for this is said by Christ, and at his ascension too to all the Apostles in communi; and therefore from this Text they can chalenge no priviledge of succession to S. Peter. or Vicariate to Christ, because this is spoken to them all, which is also expressed in the Syriack. So that your discourse hereupon goes upon a double errour in the Rule thereof: first, because you argue a genere ad speciem [Page 560] affirmative, for thus you must reason, he will be with them to the end of the world, therefore as he was with the Apostles, infalibly. Secondly, Because you argue a toto ut sic ad partem; because he will be with the Church universall, therefore with you who are but a part. And also, what if the Apostles did greater miracles than Christ? what is this to your purpose? Or if other believers should afterwards do greater miracles, your Representative Church would be lesse necessary, for they that could work miracles would not need your infalible direction. Or if they did, then cannot you conclude from supposed continuance of miracles, continuance of infalibility.
Put then your reason into a forme and it will be an Enthymem, his gifts are without repentance, therefore he hath not taken away a way so necessary: and what then? There might have been taken away a way so necessary to shew Sophistry. To the antecedent therefore we say, there is an equivocation in the word gifts. The word sometimes signifies grace of gifts, sometimes gifts of grace. If you take it here of the former, it were more pertinent to your scope; but so it is not true to the text. If of the latter, it is true to the meaning of the place; but 'tis not pertinent to your purpose: and because he knew the text [Rom. 11.29.] not to be understood of the grace of gifts; wisely is there left out that which might hinder such appearance, namely, the calling, for so it runs, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
And that which follows in his reply is also captious. For he did not finde in my words, that I applied the text to the Jews in the spirituall kind, as of infalibility, and therefore he ought not to thinke it strange, that this gift should not in full dimensions [Page 561] be always extended to the Church: unlesse we might from the litterall sense to the Jew conclude a mysticall, to the Christian proportionably to the letter; which cannot rationally be done.
He goes on. I cannot believe you trust your other Argument, if this way be promised to the Church, ergo, the Church 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 [Page 562] 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 th [...]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 [Page 563] 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 [Page 564] 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 again, this obedience he speaks of, would be rational obedience; and therefore not blind. For, to follow such a Guide which is always ruled by Christ, and therefore never swerves from his word (if this can be made good to me, that any Church doth, and cannot do other) is very rationall and not blind obedience. If the saying and definition of the Church be assured by Christ and his word, to be according to Christ and his word, it is necessary to be obedient to it, as to what I finde in Scripure; though I do not comprehend the reason of it, as the Scripture doth bind to faith without [Page 565] dispute: so would the Church, were I assured by the Scripture, that the Church could not swerve from it. But here are two things wanting; one is of a proof, that the Church hath not swerved. And a second, that it cannot swerve from the word of God. For my faith must build it self immediately not upon the former; because the power of swerving is not sufficiently secured by the negative; but it must be built upon the impossibilitie, and this should be demonstrated.
And still I must mind you, that I speake of the Ʋ niversall Church convented in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Supreme Pastor.
Ans. And I still say, that the Universall Church so constituted, is not free from the least danger of swerving from the word of God. And this in grosse were enough, untill it were made good by sound Argument. Yet also particularly. First, he meanes the Universall Church representatively; (for otherwise, all cannot come together) but then let us have an account why there could not be admitted to the titles of the Trent Councell, that which the [...]rench so much urged, namely [representing the Universall Church?] If it did represent the Universal Church, why might it not be said in the title? If it did not, how does he say the Ʋniversall Church convented in a General Council? 2. A Supreme Pastor in your sense should be proved and not supposed. For we acknowledge no Supreme Pastor but Christ, wch can give life or law to all the Church. He the Pastor and Bishop of our souls. 1 Pet. 2.25. He the chief Pastor. 1 Pet. 5.4. And all Bishops under him do equally participate a Vicarial care of the Church. But thirdly, the Trent Council, according to you, was general and confirmed by the Supreme Pastor; and Vigilius was the Tutilarie Saint of the valley of Trent; and yet the Trent Councell [Page 566] swerved grossely from the word of God, and particularly in the matter of half communion; as in the twentie first session, notwithstanding Christ his institution and the severall interpretations of the Doctors and Fathers acknowledged against them in the first chap. of that session; and although from the begining of Christian Religion the use under both kinds was not unfrequent, as is confessed in the second ch. Fourthly, if the Church so constituted cannot swerve from the word of God, why did the Trent Councell feare to determine what is the nature of original sin, which Viga urged them to, upon good reasons? And why did they not determine whether the blessed Virgin was exempted from original infection, whereof the Franciscans so much urged the affirmative to be defined; the Dominicans the negative? And yet in saying, non esse suae intentionis, it was not of their intention to comprehend in this Decree, wherein original sin is handled, the blessed and immaculate Virgine, they do interpretatively exempt her, though St. Paul and all holy Doct [...] did not exempt her, as the Dominicans urged; and so they do in effect contradict their universal proposition, wherein it is said, Propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus: at least it makes that definition uncertain, as the German Protestants noted.
Therefore that which followes in his Paper doth not follow in reason: This Church, guiding by her infalible Doctrine, is this way, the Church diffusive (guided now by this doctrine) was promised this direct way. Such a way we were promised, a way so direct represented, that fools cannot erre by it.
Ans. These words might have been all spared, for they are all as Ciphers till one thing be proved, and that is, the infalible Doctrine as a property inseparable [Page 567] to the Church. If the Church goes this way to prove her selfe the way, she is not the way, because she goes out of the way, or else Christ was out of the way, and the Primitive Church was not the Church, when for so many yeares it is confessed, that there was no General Council: and is not proved that there was a Pope in their sence, as indeed there was none. So then the Church universal is not the way universally, so direct that fools cannot erre: for, in all times there was not the universall Church so represented; nor the Decrees of the represented Church so confirmed, because there was no Pope. And therefore if yet the Church had another way then; we have more reason to go that way than the way which leads to Rome; and from Rome we know not whither but to darknesse: and those that follow this way are not wiser by following it; for, they are not wise in following it. [...], as Hierocles said well. Both these things are good, to know that we do not know, and to know what we do not know. And surely, if we should go their blinde way, we should neither know what wise men know, nor know neither that we are ignorant. Therefore Catarinus and Marinarus took another way to assert certainty of Grace, namely, by Scripture; as we have it in the History of the Trent Council, wherein they shaked the Adversaries of the opinion, and brought them to some moderation.
And this example of theirs in following the Scriptures might (if we were doubtfull of our cause) yet incourage us to give check to that which follows. The Scripture, as some may conceive, (for you dare not defend it) is not this way.
Ans. All conceive that it is the way but your Church. Yea, all your Church are not for this [Page 568] Church way. Besides those named the Arch-Bishops of Collen, Catarinus, Marinarus, how many even in the face of the Trent Councell have urged Scripture against all other Arguments. The antient Fathers made the Scripture their way and rule, and therefore their authorities are not answered to by my Antagonist; for that they are unanswerable. Therefore we dare, and do defend it; for it will defend us in the doing of it. But this Campian bragged of our diffidence. We return as he did who was to be put to death, as Tacitus relates it, when the Executioner bad him beare it bravely; he replied, Ʋtinam tu tam fortiter feries. So I would my Adversary had as strongly opposed, as we are in hope to answer. But it were better for them to have either lesse confidence, or to add more strength. As Archidamus said to his son after an unsuccesse, [...]. So let them give stronger Arguments, or quit the cause.
Let us see his reason. For 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 [...]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 [Page 569] 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, [Page 571] 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 [Page 572] 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 [Page 573] 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 [Page 574] 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 [Page 575] 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 [Page 576] 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 [Page 577] 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 [Page 579] 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 [Page 580] 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 [Page 581] 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 [Page 582] 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 [Page 583] 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 two say the same thing, it is not the same thing said. So when one saies the same thing in divers respects, it is not the same in sense presently, because in words. And if it be said, this is the question, whether it be said in divers respects? we answer, that we do not here speake of divers respects formall, but objective, for even according to the Principles of the Arrian, Christ is not an ordinary man, as appeares by their position, [...], there was a time when he was not, and therefore there is no reason to expound the words in the same sense when they are applied to God and Christ, as when they are applied to God, or Christ and the Disciples. Secondly, the definition of the Council is not false, if this point cannot [Page 584] be resolved into the infallible word of God; but my opinion is false; unlesse he thinks my opinion is the same with the definition of the Council: and if so, then the Council holds, that all things necessary are resolvable into plain Scripture; and if so, then by his opinion he should stand to this definition; and if so, he should yield the cause. Thirdly, the Pontificians have no such cause to stand so punctually for the necessary belief of the Divinity of the Son of God, because according to their Champion, Bellarmin in his fifth b. de Mediatore, he holds, that Christ is not a Mediator according to both natures, but only in regard of the humane nature, ratione formalis principii, for though he says, Christ be a Mediator according to both natures, ratione suppositi, and as Principium quod; yet is not his Divinity so necessary as by being Mediator in regard of his Divine nature, as the formall principle, and as a principium quo: because thus the Divine nature is more necessary per se. But thirdly, either the definition of the Council is true or false; if true, then is it for us; if false, then how shall we trust any?
He goes on. For this is the plainest place. And yet conferring it with the other, I finde 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.
Ans. Whether this be the plainest place is a question; since there are other texts, unto which this ambiguitie is not incident, as, besides that named before, St. Mat. 28.19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; where the three Divine Persons have one name, namely, one authoritie and therefore essence, and this text doth not a little puzzle the Socinian. And yet secondly, [Page 585] if the sense of the text were, that Christ and his Father were one in affection, it doth not follow therefore, that it is evidently rather against the definition of the Council: because they may be said to be one in affection, since they are one in nature, that which affirms so much doth not alwaies exclude more; therefore unlesse it were said they were one in affection onely, it would not be evidently against the Council. But if the text, by compare with the other, did make this sense of being one in affection, it would not import exclusively, that they are one in affection onely. Therefore though the text did not inferre the Councils meaning; yet, upon the supposition, the Arrian Cobler could not conclude the definition of the Council to be absolutely false, since the text doth not conclude a falsitie of that position: because to be one in affection, and to be one in essence, it doth not imply; for if they be one in essence, they are one in affection. So then, if my Adversary makes the Cobler to conclude the definition of the Council false, as to the matter, that the son of God is coessentiall with the Father, it is inconsequent: if respectively to the text, whereby they prove it, then it is indeed consequent, that the definition of the Council was false, but then we make a certain Conclusion of it for our use, that the definition of the Council of Nice was not infallible. And if so, my Adversary is undone.
And now also I take leave to be even with my Adversary. He takes the Arrian Cobler for his example. I take the Popish Collier. To this man the Roman Doctors (as my Adversary thinks) give no finall resolution of his faith, but in the Church. They give him no leave to peep into Scripture for the setling his belief. Or if his Doctors do very tenderly let fall to him any intimation of Scripture so far as to confirme [Page 586] by it the infallibilitie of his Church, then surely that which seems to speak most for their turne, and is in the mouth of all of them, namely, St. Mat. 16.18. I say unto thee thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, &c. through the nineteenth v. Well, but will his Dctors give him leave to examin this Interpretation of the text with any other? Dare they? Very hardly. They tell him, he may securely rest his faith and soule in the Authority of the Church. But here is the question, whether the Church doth rightly interpret the text on their own behalf. If they say, it is plain that that is the sense; we reply, then may other texts be plain also for us. Yea, it is not plain: for the ancient Fathers of the Church have differed from them upon the exposition, therefore the Popish Collier should have leave for once from the inquisition, by a dispensation of the Pope, to inquire, as well as the Arrian Cobler, into the sense of the text, and therefore by his poor understanding (which yet a wiser man would see sooner) he doth discerne, by comparing it with the twentieth of John. 21, 22, 23. ver. That it is not reasonable to expound the former text of such an authority to be given to St Peter, which was not in the latter given to the rest of the Apostles; specially since Bellarmin is wisely carefull, that the Princedome of the Church should not be given to St. Peter, till after his Resurrection, lest St. Peter's Successors should not be delivered from danger of succeeding him in the deniall of his Master. Now then, if equall authoritie be given to all the Apostles, (as St. Cyprian plainly also in his Tract at. de simplicitate Praelatorum, hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis; and a little before saies that Christ gave all the Apostles, after his Resurrection, parem potestatem, equall authority) [Page 587] how shall he collect from the other, that to be the Prince of the Apostles, and to be ordinary Pastor of the whole Church was given to St. Peter? Now then is this Collier at a plunge, he doth not see it in the former text by conferring it with the latter; and therefore he concludes (according to my Adversary for the Cobler) that this doth not agree with the definition of the Doctors, but rather is evidently against it, by which he concludes (in this his review) the definition of the Roman Doctors to be false.
And yet this is the plainest text for them. And therefore let the Popish Collier be convinced by some clearer Argument out of Scripture, to believe as the Church believeth: or else, to the eternall good of misled souls, confesse, that if you give not private men leave finally to resolve themselves in Scripture, the Roman can finde no means upon earth to put an end unto the main controversies, the Church not sufficing for this end: unlesse we should take the Church as commending us to Scripture for our direction, under pain of being accounted not Christians. For how are we bound, upon pain of Damnation, to believe that Jesus is the Christ without that which is written in Scripture?
But it will be said, that the Popish Collier should not have leave given him to examine the Scripture's sense, no more than the Arrian Cobler should have leave to examine the Councils definition: but both should absolutely rest in the definition of a Council. To this we answer severall things. First, it is a mighty prejudice to the Roman cause, that they account blind obedience to the Church, a duty. This darke lantern, that none should see them but their own men, breeds great suspition. The Roman cannot perswade the Arrian to rest in a Council, and therefore a Council will not make an end with all of all [Page 588] controversies. Thirdly; if the Arrian were to rest in a Council, he would say the Council of Ariminum were as considerable to him as the Council of Nice to the Homorsiasts. Fourthly, General Councils, for the purest times of the Church, were not celebrated: and therefore this is not the universall way of satisfaction and absolute determinative of faith. Fifthly, we have no prejudice against the four General Councils; we embrace them, and they make no prejudice against us, therefore if we hold, as they hold, points of faith, we are as saveable as they. Sixthly, the plainest Council they have for them is the Council of Trent, and yet the Popish Collier cannot acquiesce in that: because (although they say it was) yet he may doubt whether it was a free Generall Council. And I hope, since my Adversary saies we must take infallibility from the Generall Council, we may have leave to examine whether that was a free Generall Council. And here we must contradistinguish the Church unto the Council, and we must not believe the Council for the Church; for then the infallibilitie would lie in the Church, not in the Council. Well, and must we take the Councill to be right and good from it self? suppose we were to receive undisputedly the Decrees of faith in a Generall Council; yet we must be assured first, that this was a Generall free Council, then it is left us to examine the Council, though not the definitions: for if the Scripture cannot prove it self, as they suppose, then the Councill cannot, and therefore the Popish Collier may examine the Council. And how shall he content himself about the Councill in the generalitie of it, since there was so few persons in it, sometimes but forty three, Legates and Abbots being put in: and some titular Bishops onely, sometimes forty eight; for a good while not above sixty; the Prelates of other Nations not there; [Page 589] not a Bishop or Divine of all Germany there; in the yeare 1546 no French Bishop could be there, and therefore no Generall Council. As the French King said, page 314. and by reason of the paucitie of the persons then there, forty eight Bishops and five Cardinalls; and not one of the Prelates remarkable for learning; and some of them Lawyers, and some Courtiers, the Decrees of the Council about Apocryphall books and making authenticall a translation differing from the Originall, did displease in Germany; as it is set down in the History of the Trent Council, p. 163. * And for the freenesse of it, the Collier might deny that by severall passages: for absolute autority was given to the Legats of the Pope to procreed without consent of Council, p. 113. Derogations from the liberty of the Council noted, p. 232. the Bishop of Fiesole complained of to the Pope for reasonable freedom, p. 167, 8. Amongst the three things the Pope admonished his Legates, one was, to take beed that by no means the Popes authority be disputed on, p. 164, And yet this is the point which formally denominates the Popish Religion. And his being Head of the universall Church, as he presumes, is the point which denominates their Church the Roman Catholick. Yea, it was protested against by the French King; which was of force against it, according to some prohibentis conditio potior, as p. 320. And therefore cannot the Popish Collier finally resolve his faith in a Council upon its own conciliarie authority. And assuredly, if the Arrian Cobler and the Popish Collier were both to dispute the same point; one by the Scripture, the other by the Council, the Cobler would sooner convince the Collier by Scripture, which he doth acknowledge as certain, than the Collier the Cobler by the Council, which he doth not acknowledge so: yea, if the Collier and the Cobler were equally disposed to finde [Page 590] truth indifferently to their opinions, the Cobler might sooner settle his mind in Scripture, than the Collier in a Council; for the Cobler hath no more to do than to finde out the sense of Scripture, and then he is satisfied: but the Collier, when he hath found out the sense of the Council, is not satisfied; because, if he were assured that a free and generall Council was infallible, he might yet doubt of the hypothesis, whether this Council were so. But it is false in these, that a generall Council, though free, is infallible, and that we are bound to believe so; for why then would not the Pope put the main question▪ out of question? Either he did suspect the point himself, or did suspect his own Subjects in the Council, or did suspect, that it did not bind unto necessary belief, or else he was deceived in point of prudence, (which is most unlikely) to have that waved.
Num. 5.He proceeds. This your Doctrine maketh the definitions of true Councils, and their finall determinations, to be indeed no definitions nor finall determinations at all.
Ans. This, in reasoning, would prove a Schisme, a dicto secundum quid. Because I deny them to be finall in your sense, therefore I deny them to be finall in all sense, is not consequent. It doth not follow from the deniall of one species to the deniall of all. Finall definitions, as to humane Tribunals, I acknowledge them: but finall so, as to exclude the examination of them by Scripture, I deny. Final, as to peace, and not to be refractary, I grant: but finall, as to necessary assent upon the Councils account, I deny. That we may finde truth by them, I yield; because so many abilities united with Gods blessing, may be like to pitch upon that true sense of Scripture which may determine the judgement unto certain [Page 591] assent. As by the conflict of hard things sparkes of fire do break out: so by the industrious discussion of opinions, truth may appear eminently. But we cannot conclude the definitions, intuitively, and ipso facto, infallible. And why should we be obliged to stand to their declaration of truth, as if they did also make it to be truth? And why should we stand to their Conclusions, when their discourse is fallible, unlesse they go by Scripture? And if they by Scripture examine opinions, why should not we by Scripture examine their definitions, as to our selves? Which should be last in the determination, Council, or Scripture, when Councils begin by it, and determine with it? Therefore I do not make them in no sense finall; or none. That which follows, Now surely it is cleare. &c. unto the end of the number, how little strength of reason hath it? This, in effect, was answered immediately before. My Adversary does us right in confessing our acknowledgement of the first four Generall Councils. And also may we confesse, that we think they thought they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define, and finally to determine those Controversies; but what then? 1. What if they thought so? We have liberty by our principles to think that inconcludent, because we hold them not infallible in their judgement. Not because they thought they had such power, therefore they had it; unlesse we should hold them infallible, as we do not. Neither is this thought of ours, that they might think amiss of such power to be in them, any prejudice to our acknowledgement of those first four General Councils; because this opinion of theirs is no part of their determinations. Secondly, we distinguish: All plenitude of power is taken either reduplicatively, or specificatively for all that power which belongs to the whole Church; the former, if [Page 592] their opinion of themselves were infallible, would serve his turne: but we deny that they thought they had all power so; and if they did think so, we think they did not think right: the latter power they might think they had and not think amisse, but this serves not the turn; for all authority of the Church doth not bind us to receive the definitions thereof so as to sink all examination of the truth thereof by Scripture. Have not other courts a plenitude of power to hear and determine causes; and yet are sometimes defective in point of law? Their fallibility doth not proceed from want of power or authoritie, but from want of judgement or will to give a right sentence. And yet their censures also proceed. And therefore the excommunications (which my Adversary objects to me) may neither import their faith of their infallibilitie, nor yet wrong to all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined, if error and falsitie and contradiction to Scripture could be found in their definitions and determinations; for first it is not fallibilitie of sentence that doth the wrong, but falsity, either by ignorance, (and so ignorantia in Judice reputatur pro dolo) or else by wilfulnesse, (which formally makes the injurie, because intended.) Secondly, the excommunications proceed against the person for an outward act of obstinacie, and not for a dissent of judgment (for cogitationis poenam in nostro foro nemo luit) so then there is no wrong to him that gainsays by excommunication; for that simply he might keep his judgment. And also thirdly, the Judge though he judgeth not well, yet may do well, if he judgeth with competent knowledge and due integrity, and therefore is it no injury if he does his best, since God hath not thought fit on the behalfe of publick peace, to disannull humane Judicatures for humane infirmities.
His Answer to my instance of the Bereans (who searched the Scripture daily to see whether that which St. Paul said was true) my Adversary doth referre to another Chapter. We stay his leisure.
Whereas you adde fourthly,Num. 6.that the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie, do yet oblige unto peace, though their judgement cannot claime an undisputed assent, yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference, you teach by words what the deed of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid.
To this it is readily answered, that Reformers may be glorious as to the generall effect, though it's possible for them to be extravagant in modo. Sober businesses may be managed with too much heate. Secondly, whereas he supposeth that our glorious Reformers did notoriously gainsay the whole Church, I deny it; and if they did not gainesay the whole Church, it doth not come home to his purpose: for he is upon the authority of the whole Church. They did gainsay the Roman Church, but not the whole Church. That which St. Jerom said in his Epistle to Evagrius, is yet for our use; si authoritas queritur, orbis major est urbe, if authority be lookt after, the world is greater than a City, which was also spoken in application to Rome. And put case there were no sort of Christians that did not professe obedience to the Roman Church, when those glorious Reformers did first appeare, yet it cannot be rationally said by the Romanist, that they did gainsay the whole Church, because the Romanist doth take the root of his Church from the primitive times; which those Reformers did not gainsay. So then as we deny to them that they were all the whole Church, when the Reformers did begin: so if they had, it would be nothing as to the gainsaying of the whole Church, [Page 594] because the whole Church in their sence doth include all times, and specially the primitive; which they did not contradict. And surely if the Romanist proves his Church by conformitie to the Primitive, (otherwise he hath the lesse reason for himself) then must he interpretatively grant, that there is more authority of the Primitive Church, than of that present Roman. And so then if the Reformers gainsaid not the primitive, they gainsaid not the Catholick in the best part of it for time; and that also which the present Roman doth most, as they say, depend upon. Thirdly, therefore we do not take our Religion from those Reformers as being worne into their words; and therefore we do not impropriate Christianity by any singular persons: we might take hints from them to consider those Doctrines which they preached, and conferring them with Antiquity and Scripture, we believe them to be Apostolicall; and so is our Church, by Tertullian's rule in his book of Prescriptions, ch. 32. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae, those Churches that conspire in the faith are not lesse accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of Doctrine. Fourthly, those Reformers, even according to my Adversaries Principles, did not oppose themselves to the authoritie of the whole Church: because, according to him, the authority of the Church is onely binding in a Council with the Popes consent; and no Generall Council can be found which did establish the points of Doctrine and Discipline wherein we differ, before those Reformers did shew themselves: for the Trent Councill (which also is not a generall Council) was after their beginning, as is known, and it was called upon their occasion. Fifthly, as for our Reformation in England from the incroachments of the Court of [Page 595] Rome, it was first made by men of the Roman faith. So then my Adversary gets nought by this exception. And if the Romanists object to us reformation in Doctrine against the Church, as in the time of King Edward the sixth, we reply, as before, that we did not oppose the Church Catholick, we left the Roman as they left the Catholick Church. The whole is greater than the part, and therefore had we reason to leave them. Omne reducitur ad principium, which is a rule of Aquinas. We are in Doctrine as the Church was in the times of the Apostles. Our defence is in Tertullian in his book of Praesor. 35. ch. Posterior nostra res non est; imo omnibus prior est, &c. Our cause is not more moderne, but more antient than all. This shall be the Testimony of truth every where, obtaining the superiority. Ab Apostolis utique non damnatur, imo defenditur; it is not condemned by the Apostles, nay, it is defended. This shall be the indication of propriety: for those who do not condemne it who have condemned whatsoever is extraneous, do shew it to be theirs, and therefore do defend it.
The second inconvenience, which he urgeth, of my Principles, to draw me to his, is none. Secondly, seeing that a Generall Council (as you in your first paper confesse) is the highest Court on earth to hear and determine controversies, &c. What then? unlesse, all were bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions, and all Preachers were silenced, and obliged not to open their mouths against their errors.
This he attributes to me, as if I said it, or my opinion did inferre it; whereas neither is true. Nay, nor did he find in my papers, that erroneous definitions of a Generall Council (though the highest Court) are to be accepted peaceably, reverently, and without disturbance; namely, so as to accept them in assent [Page 596] as true; for that would be impossible: they may be accepted, and reverently, and without disturbance, as to peace in not opposing; though not as to faith in submission of Judgement: and because they may thus be accepted, will it therefore follow, that we are therefore bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions? By no meanes. I do not remember that I used the terme of accepting; and yet if I did, it might be construed in sensu commodo, so as not to disturb the peace of the Church, and quietly to endure the censure. But there is a vast difference betwixt not opposing and conforming or subscribing. For not to oppose, is negative: to conforme, or subscribe, is a positive act. Not to oppose, respects the definition as a publick act; to conforme, or subscribe, respects it as true, which I cannot do, supposing it erroneous. Not to oppose, regards the Judgement of the Church as authoritative: to conforme or subscribe, regards the judgement of the Church, as at least, not erring in the definition.
And as for that he saies, that by my confession, all Preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against these errors. I answer first, by distinguishing of the matter of the error. If the matter of the error be not great, as not destroying an article of faith, it might be better quietly to tollerate it, than publickly to speak against it: if the matter of the error be repugnant to an article of faith, then we distinguish of the manner of speaking against it; and we say we may soberly refer it to another general Council, if any be in view. If not, we may speak the truth positively without opposition to the authoritie of the Church, so as to vilify or contemn it. Yea, further, if the Council be free and general, it being so qualified, it is not like to erre in any decree repugnant to a [Page 597] main article of faith: and therefore the question about speaking against it, is in this case well taken away. And yet further, admitting, and not granting, that such a Council should erre in defining that which is contrary to an article of faith; yet must my Adversary have supposed by his principles that the truth contrary to this error hath been established by some other general Council; or else, according to him, the Church hath not sufficiently provided how to settle us infallibly in matters of faith; since, according to him, we must resolve our faith ultimately in the Decrees of Generall Councils, and then Council will contradict Council, and therefore will not a Council be a ground of faith, because one may contradict another, and also we may speak by vertue of the former Council against the error of the latter. And therefore the whole Church of God is not in a pitifull case by any thing of what I said in reverence to Councils without absolute obedience. But to be sure the Church would be in a pitifull case, if indeed we were bound to receive intuitively all definitions of Councils in whatsoever matters; for then should we be bound to submit our conscience to a Council against our conscience, since it is not yet proved infallible, and this makes for the inward act a contradiction; for the outward, hypocrisie. And surely, if that which is most hard is most easily broken, (as was said by one in the Trent Council) then that he urgeth is easily answered: for there is, to be sure, lesse danger in not speaking against that which is false, as he would have me say; than in yielding to all as infallibly true, as he would have me believe.
And therefore that which follows returnes with more force upon my Adversary, mutatis mutandis. A pitifull thing it would be, if the Church were bound to believe all definitions of a Council, which [Page 598] are not yet proved, nor ever will be, not to be fallible; and consequently some that may be false, which being by command from the highest authoritie upon earth preached by so many, and not so much as to be consiwered by one, would needs increase to a wonderfull height. Would any wise Law-maker proceed thus, if they could helpe it as well as Christ could by continuing in his word written that infallibilitie, which my Adversary hath confessed, or must, that it always had and shall have.
As for the infallibility of the Church for two thousand yeares before Scripture was written, and that which this Church of Christ had before all the whole canon of the new Testament was finished, which was for the first forty yeares of the Church.
This we have spoken to sufficiently before. And this doth at most inferre (upon a supposition, that the Church was for that time infallible, which yet we grant not) a possibilitie of it to be infallible still. It doth not inferre an actuall infallibilitie still. Because God did so then, therefore he did so after the word was written, is as good an Argument as this; because God made an extroardinary light for the time before the Sun was created, therefore we must not now be directed by the light of the Sun. As if because God did sufficiently rule his Church without general Councils for the first three hundred yeares, therefore we should not make use of Councils now. And then we say, secondly, we must not compare the two thousand yeares before any word was written but onely with the time of the Church when the Gospel was not written (as for fortie years after Christ untill the Canon was finished) and so it bears some proportion: but it is not to be compared with the other times of the Church after the finishing of the Canon. For then the word was to be the ordinary [Page 599] standing rule, without Prophets or Apostles. Thirdly, was there any thing necessary consigned by tradition to the Church which was not put into writing? This cannot be said; because then God should have provided for his Church worse afterwards by writing. And if it be said that the writing of the word doth not exclude the word not written, which is tradition, let them tell me why, when all was in tradition before, somewhat was put into writing, and somewhat left in the way of tradition. And then also let them tell me how that of our Saviour should be true, St. John the fifth. 39. Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me., if any thing necessary were left in tradition, how could they have eternall life in the Scriptures? So then, since all that was necessary was committed to writing; why then was not that whereby the Church was ruled for forty years before the Canon was finished written also as well as before? and then your tradition (which you contradistinguish to Scripture) is evacuated. Or let me know why we may not as well deny the Roman traditions in point of faith after the finishing of the Canon, as our Saviour did the traditions of the Pharises after their Canon was finished? And why then should we not apply to them that of our Saviour to the Jews. St. Mat. 15.9. In vaine do they worship me, teaching for Doctrine the traditions of men. Might not the Pharisees as well have put their traditions into their Mishna, which (as the tradition is) was delivered by word of mouth from God to Moses, from Moses to Joshuah, from Joshuah to the seventie, from them to the Church? And fourthly, my Adversary speakes this in favour of Generall Councils; does he not? If he does not, his discourse doth not well cohere, if he does, he does not consider, that for the [Page 600] two thousand yeares there was no generall Council, nor for the first forty of the Christian Church. Nor much for the first three hundred years. And what consequence can be then drawn from his words against me for my deniall of being obliged absolutely to Councils? If the Church were infallible, even without Councils, it would contradict me, who say, that the Church is not infallible, even by Councils: but since he sayes, now the Church is infallible by Councils, if it were infallible without Councils, it would contradict him, who says, it is infallible in and by Councils: because he placeth the infallibilitie in Councils, so as that he will not stand to any infallibilitie of the Church without them.
Num. 7.In the seventh Number he doth indeavour to free me from the fear of hypocrisie in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief. But his indeavour is not sufficient. To differ by my outward act of subscribing from my inward act of belief, is hypocrisie: but if I subscribe to that which I do not assent unto as true, I must differ by my outward act from my inward act: and therefore will it be hypocrisie. To the assumption he would now give me satisfaction, by perswading me that my inward act of assent may well go along with my outward act of subscribing. His reason is this, for any wise man may inwardly perswade himself, that although I, by my force of wit, cannot see how such a point defined by a whole General Council should be true; yet, if I have wit, I cannot but perswade my self, even according to humane wisdome, that so grave a judgement of a whole Council is far more likely to see the truth, than my private judgement, and therefore rather to be interiourly imbraced.
Ans. And is this all he can say to move me to [Page 601] change my opinion? First he seems to suppose that we cannot see sufficient reason in all the determinations of a Council; and so far he speaks ingenuously, because it is a prejudice against himself. Secondly, there are so many doubts of a free generall Council about the morall existence of it, that I had need of some Divine faith to believe, that such or such is a free Generall Council. And that there may be such scruples of such a Council he himself afterwards gives me intimation of. Thirdly, all this I can give you the free use of; for it will do me no harme. The discourse is peccant upon the ignorance of the Elench, for this is in terms reconcilable to our cause; yea, and also almost all that follows to the end of the number; for they do not prove a captivating of the soul into the obedience of faith, as the Apostle speaketh; but at most but a disposing of the mind of the person against opposition. As you do conclude, you conclude above your premisses: as you should conclude from your premisses before, you can conclude nothing against me. For fourthly, all that is said there makes no more than a probability of that to be right which is defined by the Council. For, put case it seems so to all in a generalitie, or to most, or to the wisest, and of them to all, or most of the wiser of them, this is but probable, according to Aristotle's account. And then I will deny it, that every Council is so qualified. If it were, this probabilitie makes but a strong opinion, but not faith. And therefore the Romanist doth unadvisedly urge necessity of faith upon grounds infallible, before they can give us grounds infallible. And therefore fifthly, as for his Dilemma, it will not take. It is this: Either the places against the definitions of the Council are clear, or not: if not, they are more likely to hit upon the truth than I am: if clear and evident, then it is an evident [Page 600] [...] [Page 601] [...] [Page 602] and clear folly in me to thinke, that so wise an Assembly should have so universall a blindnesse, as that none of them should be able to discover that which is cleare and evident even to my short sight; alas, how far comes this short of infallible satisfaction? And 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 [Page 603] 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 [Page 604] 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 [Page 605] 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, cred [...]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 thirdly, I can charge the Council of Trent with contradictions to it self: and the Trent Council was a generall Council, in the opinion of my Adversary; therefore that [Page 606] grace is voluntarily received, is their opinion; and that yet we cannot know whether we are in state of grace, includes a contradiction; as if we did not know our own will, what it does. This absurdity was urged by Catharinus in the Trent Council. Again (not to speak of some of them who had voted the Edition vulgar to be authentick, and yet did except against the interpretation of the word [...], for sin pardoned, in the History of the Council. p. 207) there is a contradiction noted by the German Divines in the sixth session, the seventh ch. Where it is said of justice, which every one receives according to his measure, quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult, et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem: Which the Holy Ghost doth impart as he will, and according to every ones disposition and cooperation.
If according to his will, then not according to our disposition; for then it is not, as he will. And so in the thirteenth session, in the first ch. it is said of the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus; which although we can scarce expresse in words, and yet in the fourth ch. it is called of the Holy Catholick Church, Transubstantiation convenienter et proprie, appositly and properly. And in the second Canon of the same session, it saith of Transubstantiation, quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem apellat; which the Catholick Church cals most fitly Transubstantiation. Was the Council of Trent infallibly assisted, or assisted with infallibility in these contradictions? and yet it may be these not all.
Num. 9.But number the ninth will make an end of our cause, if a Rodomontado of my Adversary could do the deed. Thus, And when you ask again, why [Page 607] you are charged as if you were opposed to the true Catholick Church? I answer, Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church, and consequently he had such a Church when your Reformation, as you call it, began. But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and important points of Doctrine not onely the Roman, but all other Churches upon earth. Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points. And in plain English I tell you, this Argument which is in lawfull form is unanswerable.
Ans. So then. But is this Achilles? Is this [...]? Alas, if we come near him, it is but bombast. First, we deny it in the lawfulnesse of the forme, which he asserts; for it is concluding in the second figure affirmatively, and in this regard onely it is unanswerable: for it is not to be answered, for want of forme. But yet secondly, lest they should think it is unanswerable in the matter, we answer to the major first, by distinguishing; if he takes the true Catholick Church, as in the Apostles Creed, he commits an equivocation; for so it cannot be taken in the minor; because we have in the minor the Roman Church and other Churches, now the Roman is a visible Church, he means, and so he means the other Churches to be visible; for we cannot properly oppose, he will think, any but visible Churches: but in the Creed is meant the Church invisible, which is the object of faith. If he takes it for the true Catholick Church visible, as always perspicuous and flourishing in visibility in all the parts of it, it is denied that the Church Catholick is so visible, and therefore we deny the major; and need not say any thing to the minor; and yet also we deny the minor, because, if it were not so visible, we could not be said to oppose it. And he cannot prove that we opposed all other [Page 608] Churches; because they were not in his sense, visible, and therefore how can he say, that we opposed all other Churches, since, if they were visible in the parts to some that were Neighbors, yet not visible to the world generally? Was the Church lesse the Church in the Primitive times, when it wanted candles to be seen in the night? or the seven thousand, which Elijah did not know of, lesse belonging to the Church of the Jews, because they did not openly professe the true Religion? How then can it be said rationally, that we opposed all Churches; for how could he or any one man under Heaven know all the Churches of the world then? Yea, thirdly, in how many and important points did the Reformers oppose the Greek Church; and the Waldenses, who as the Author of the History of the Trent Council sayes, had forsaken the Church of Rome then four hundred years before, in his fifth book. Yea, fourthly, the major proposition supposeth for all times and places: doth it not? for so the Catholick Church is properly taken, as including all times and places: and so we deny the minor: we did not oppose all Churches of all times. Dato non concesso, that we did at the Reformation oppose not onely the Roman, but all other Churches, yet did we not oppose all Churches, or the Roman of the Primitive times: and therefore did we not oppose the Catholick Church. Yea, yet fifthly, we distinguish dissent from opposition. Although opposition includes a difference, yet every difference doth not include an opposition, for then St. Cyprian had opposed the Church in differing from it upon the point of Rebaptization. And if it be said that the point of Rebaptization was not then defined by the Church: we say, that yet this consideration doth not make every difference to have in it the nature of [Page 609] opposition; for then, though St. Cyprian had not opposed the authority of a Church in a Council, yet had he opposed the authoritie of the Church; which then did bind him more than the Trent Council doth us. And that St. Cyprian did so oppose the Church, was not then held by the Church Catholick. Sixthly, to return the Argument upon them. Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church, and consequently, he had such a Church when their deformation went on in the Trent Council, but they then in very many and important points of Doctrine did oppose all true Catholicks; therefore without doubt they opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points; as in communion under one kind; in Transubstantiation; in Purgatorie; in the merit of works; in seven Sacraments of proper name; in invocation and religious worship of the Saints; in Images. Yea, the Roman Church hath more formally opposed the whole Church; because in the Trent Council it would have the Roman Church to be the Catholick; which supposeth that all Christians must strike sail to them, or else they are sunke. Seventhly, we tell him wherein the Romanist hath divided from the whole Church; but he doth not tell us 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 tot [...]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 [Page 670] 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 [Page 671] 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. [Page 612] 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 Protest [...]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. [Page 613] 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 and to follow the Primitive? If the person be to be esteemed by the Doctrine, not the Doctrine by the person, as Tertullian's rule is in his Praescrip. Then we may leave fellowship of persons for affinity with better Doctrine, if by the communion with the persons, we must also espouse the errours. Fourthly, as they have sunke their Patriarcate, and have arrogated an universallity of domination (and so have divided from all the world, that they might reigne over all) so we have resumed our antient libertie of the Brittish Church to subsist independently from them. Yea, this was acknowledged in effect by Ʋrban, when he called for Anselme in the Council at a plunge, Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam. And therefore, as to Communion upon subjections we are not bound; and as to [Page 674] fraternall Communion we are ready in mind, with any who are, or when they shall be found; since all the separation which was made by us, (if any made) was in our own defence. Fifthly, if Spalatensis and Erasmus were able to judge, many would have been of our Communion, durst they have been like those whom St. Cyprian speaks of, who were unconquerable; because they did not fear to die. And therefore, as Justin Martyr said of Plato, that he would as plainly have spoken for one God as Socrates, but that he was afraid of Socrates's death; so that he obscured his passages of Divinity, with other passages which did differ: so would many (besides those in the Trent Council) have spoken more freely for the Protestants, but for the Inquisition: and this hath made them blende good passages for us with some appearances against us. So then since we communicate with the first four Generall Councils in Doctrine, and with the Primitive times also in Discipline, this externall division from you makes the quarrell; but as the case stood, no guilt; and therefore no danger. The Catholick Church hath the greatest promises; the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church. So then we may do well without their Communion, if we pray for them.
Num. 10.In the tenth number, he would winde himself off from the inconveniency of his own principle in the fourth page of the Treatise, True it is to submit exteriourly to temporall judges, they being able, and only to judge of the exteriour man; but God who searcheth the reins and the heart, and who looketh most upon the mind (which is the seate of true or false belief) doth chiefly exact that those of his Church be of one faith interiourly, or else they are not of one faith: for faith essentially consisteth in the interiour judgement, &c. Upon which words I did argue thus: We [Page 675] are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act. But God onely can judge our internall acts; therefore we must submit our assents onely to him; and therefore to others no further than they speake according to him: so that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils, which have erred, Jewish and Christian too.
And now he saies, I never said any such thing. He means, namely, that Councils cannot judge of the interiour act. Nor do I say, that he did say so. But I took his principle, That God onely searcheth the heart and reins, and looketh upon the mind, and exacteth that those of his Church be of one judgement interiourly, for my discourse. The Argument is out of its own position. And now, (if there had been need of his confession) he hath acknowledged the Assumption, that God onely can judge of the internall act: for he denies this ability to Councils. And therefore it doth appear, that he is snarled: and that Councils cannot binde the internall act, because they cannot judge thereof.
But now therefore he would evade thus. But God (in whose name the Church teacheth and commandeth all which she teacheth and commandeth) searcheth the heart and the reins. What then? Because they teach and command in God's name, therefore have they God's omniscience? If the Divine nature of Christ did not transfuse by communication of Ideoms a reall propertie to the humane nature, of the Divine; shall they thinke to makes God's Court, which immediately obligeth in Conscience, to be theirs? They make God and the Council all one. As they have given to the Pope Christ's Chaire: so they will give to the Council God's Tribunall. Whatsoever is taught in Gods name hath not always for it, [Page 616] sic dicit Dominus, God's word pierceth the heart, as before, but every thing which is taught under God's name is not according to his word, as traditions. This is just such an Argument as that of the Pontificians to prove, that the Saints in Heaven see all things, because they see him who sees all things: Yes, and he that searcheth the hearts giveth them his authority, therefore they can binde in the intetiour act. Hath he given them this authority? Hath he given them this power? if they affirme it, it is high Blasphemy. If they deny it, the Argument of my Adversary to excuse himself, is a nullitie. And my Argument is yet good against them, since his is no better than if I should say, because they see one who sees nothing, they see nothing. And therefore this did fully absolve the substance of the fourth page, or dissolve it; the Council may be assisted and yet not with omniscience, nor infallibility.
Num. 11.And therefore hath he no cause to say to me, but you skip to my admiration of your Doctrine. Let the judicious Reader judge which have skipped most; he that answereth punctually, or he that gives a treatise for an answer. I urged him pressely; and he answered me not so much as coldly, not at all. This was one skip for all.
And then he goes on with repetitions of our Doctrine, and of his refutations of it before with references to the fourth chap. And then he tels me what shall be done in the next. But I should not hear of it untill it be done. Laudari non potest nisi peractum, [...]. this might have been skipped.
Then he comes to say somewhat of St. Athanasius. As for St. Athanasius, did ever he oppose his judgement against the definitions ef a lawfull Generall [Page 617] Councill? Nay, did it not appeare by the Council of Nice, standing for his Doctrine, that he might well know, the true Church, lawfully assembled under the lawfull Pastor, confirming their acts, would teach as he did.
Ans. First, the whole argument is drawn but a singulari, and this will not conclude, if he did not oppose. Secondly, if it did conclude, it would not be contradictory; for we do not maintain opposition. Thirdly, though he did not oppose the Synod of Nice, yet doth it not follow presently, that he did not oppose it by reason of an infallibility, but because it was not deceived, as ruling it self by the word of God. Fourthly, St. Athanasius had the same opinion against the multitude, which the Nicene Council had, before the Council or after. If before also, then we see that one man is not to be controlled by a multitude; and therefore why are we upbraided in our Religion with the paucity of the Professors? If after, then we see that a Council is not an effectuall meanes to put an end to all Controversies. Fifthly, he doth not advisedly put in these words, the lawfull Pastor confirming their Acts. This is not discreetly applied to the Council of Nice; for, as to this, he was first deceived, in thinking we would swallow his supposition of the lawfull Pastor in his sense of universality and singularity. We deny the Pope to be the lawfull Pastor. Secondly, Liberius did subscribe S. Athanasius's banishment: and how shall we then take the confirmation of a Council from a Pope, when he subscribes against it? Thirdly, the Nicene Council was not confirmed by the Bishop of Rome more than by some other Bishop. Yea, as it was called By the Emperor Constantine, so was it confirmed [Page 618] by him. And therefore by my Aduersaries principles, The authority of the Nicene Council should be but humane, because it had not its esse formale by the Pope. Yea, sixthly, neither is it necessary, that after the Nicene Council he should oppose a greater humane authority upon the authority of the Council, as if it had been more than humane: for he opposed the greater part before. Seventhly, he did not well consider what he said; for if he might oppose (upon his supposition) a greater humane authority; then, untill they prove the authority of a Council to be Divine, so as infallibly assisted with infallibility, there may be a greater authority than of the Nicene Council; which is not true notwithstanding. And if he meant so, he opppsed a Generall Council more than I.
In the following words of this number, I was glad to finde him so soberly defending the title of Roman Catholicks. He saies, To avoid this very strife, impertinent now to our purpose, I used that very name by which no others are excluded.
This is ingeniously said, but he knew that the Romanists are wont to usurp this title. And I had good reason to take good notice of it, lest my silence should be mis-interpreted. For some are wont to take advantage at what is said, and also at what is not said. But indeed doth he give up the title to the use of others also as not exclusive to them, neither in comprehension, (which would make a contradiction) nor in jurisdiction; then why doe men contend so much for the Roman Church, as Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches? Why is added in their Creed to the Catholick Church the Roman? Why in the Trent Council was none accounted Catholicks but them? Indeed [Page 619] also this is the wisest course, if the knot cannot be untied, to cut it off: so he, to avoide the proof of the appropriation of the title to them, hath denied the appropriation. But this confession I suppose the Priests of Rome would not well accept; for in very deed it goes near to the ruining of the cause. And this plainly contradicts himself in his own principles, thus; the Catholick Church is infallible: so he says still. The Roman Church is onely infallible. So he said in the end of the former Treatise; then the Roman Church is onely Catholick. Now he says he did not exclude other Churches: and yet no Church Catholick but the Roman.
And in this impertinent strife you say many things, of which you prove not one. If such a put-off might be allowed to me, I might soon have done. I need not say much to what is said, because so little is said to any purpose. But he knew he was pinched by mention of the falsification of the Nicene Council about the superiority of the Bishop of Rome, and severall other particulars, which needed no proof to an intelligent man, let the world judge, whether if any thing could be excepted against what I said solidly, my Adversary would have forborne the offering of it to consideration. And also to my former vindication of our Doctrine about the authority of Councils, which had four answers, he replies nothing but that of Athanasius, which might more happily have been left out.
In the twelfth number he would refute me by noting a dangerous consequence flowing from the premisses of our Doctrine, Num. 12. his discourse is resolved into this Syllogisme, Texts of Scripture are not [Page 620] able to decide all necessary controversies (unlesse as they send us to the Church) by themselves, as I shall shew in my next ch. But I hold texts of Scripture onely infallible. Therefore we shall never have an end of Controversies, unlesse we understand the texts of Scripture (which speake of Christ's promises to the Church) of assistance infallible: as St. Math. 28. ult. and others which we shall have an account of in the next ch. This is the sum of his ratiocination.
Ans. We shall shew the civility not to prevent the use and businesse of the next ch. but this reasoning will be valid no where; it will not grow stronger by the next age. Therefore we say (not to repeat repetitions) that, as to the major proposition, we deny it upon our account of all necessary Controversies, although not upon his account. All things plainly necessary are so laid down in Scripture, as there needs be no controversie thereabouts. In things of question simple error doth not damn. But those who make no difference of belief by respect to object or use, but do take all upon the proposall of the Church, are apt to enlarge the number of things necessary, because, all upon that account are with equall necessity to be received. And yet, as hath been noted, they have no reason to multiply the number of necessary Controversies; for with them there is no necessity of believing any thing but this, that the Church is infallible. But then secondly, as to the major, if he meane by themselves so as the Scriptures should formally decide Controversies, he fights with his own shadow: for it doth not contradict, when we do not affirme: we say not that formally any Controversie is decided by texts of Scripture, but that in things plain there is no necessity [Page 621] of any such decision; and in many Controversies the Scripture doth as well in the principles decide it, as the Law doth differences civil. If he meanes by themselves therefore so, as that they do not decide them without sending us to the Church; we answer by distinguishing, that first in things plaine there is no need of the judgement of the Church. In things of Controversie there is need of the Church; but not need of infallible determination. There is an ending of Controversies speculatively, when the judgement is resolved by infallible Scripture: there is an ending of Controversies practically, by authority of the Church, so as to binde the person against disturbance. Now the question betwixt us is of the former ending of Controversies which cannot be performed by the Church. And dare any man that soberly reads all 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 [Page 622] 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 [Page 623] 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 [Page 624] 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 [Page 625] 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 thus.
Since you bring the authority of Councils to a little more than nothing, and again the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing; in order to the ending of Controversies, this your violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers will give me leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the begining appeared possible; for it is evident out of your own words, that it is to no end to deale with you out of Fathers: and I am resolved to deale with no body but to some end. I will therefore humor you in this: and I will lay aside all that might hereafter be said concerning the opinion of Fathers.
Ans. Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem. My Adversary is so curious in this apology of his, that he is to be suspected. I gave no such occasion, but he takes it against the use of the Fathers in this point. I am not guilty, in any sober mans judgement, of any privative disrepect unto them. I do not bring [Page 626] the authority of the Fathers to a little lesse than nothing: what is due justly either to Councils or to Fathers I do willingly give. But because infallibility is not granted, therefore am I charged with disrespect. This is a fallacie [...]. He that denies them this doth not deny unto them such reverence as is equal. And for the Fathers, I have not waved any testimony which hath been produced against our cause; I have not said, as he, ‘ [...].’ Yea, I have used the same Argument against my Adversaries in triumphum. Again, [...], as he in his Rhetorick: but I have said nothing which is not conformable to the word of God, to the consent of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church: but because I will not make the word of the Fathers and of the Doctors equall to the infallible word of God, therefore am I not reasonably accused of slighting the Fathers and Doctors of the antient Church. But this was necessary for my Adversary, to colour his refusall of answering to those Fathers I brought against him, and to the answers which I gave to the testimonies of the Fathers which he brought against me. So difficulty is sometimes by Sophisters construed for impertinency. By this Argument I must say nothing proper but what may be easily answered. But it had been more ingenuous, first, to have exhibited solid authorities out of the Fathers of the Primitive antiquity; or at least to have given a sufficient answer to my refutation of what use he made of those he quoted against me; and then to have laid aside the urging of the Fathers upon my account of Refusall of them onely as infallible Judges. To gather up then my exceptions against this part of his apologie; I say first, I do not either [Page 627] in terms, or by consequence, bring Councils to a little more than nothing, nor the authority of the Fathers to little lesse than nothing, in order to the ending of Controversies. I allow them to be of great use in his terms, in order to the ending of Controversies. There may be an ordinability of them towards, or in order, to this end, without infallibility in them: they may finde out and give us the infallible sense of Scripture; but we cannot take it so upon their word: their authority is moving but not cogent of our assent. Secondly, I except against those words wherein he imputes to me a violence against any provocation to antiquity and consent to Fathers.
This I deny. Neither in termes nor by discourse can they finde such words or sense from me. I have used their own weapon against them. I have answered their objections from them. I renew the provocation and challenge which Bishop Jewell and others of our Divines have made to them, to shew, if they can, any notable part, yea, any two, yea, any one of the ancient Fathers that clearly and constantly hath professed the points wherein we differ from them. And if the Fathers had been for them, why did they corrupt some passages of the Fathers which spoke against them; which they have not yet cleared themselves of? Yea, thirdly, whereas he says my refusall of the Fathers will give him leave to make this Treatise much shorter than at the beginning; I say (not insisting here upon the impropriety of a Treatise, if it be no more as to my satisfaction: or of the terme, if it be more) that there had been rome enough for all the Fathers authorities he could produce for himself, and also for all that he could say to my answers about their testimonies, without Theremaking [Page 628] his Treatise so long, if he had left out impertinences, and references, and repetitions.
Therefore hath my Adversary taken more liberty than I afforded him in his refusall of dealing with the Fathers: yet not more liberty than was necessary for him, lest he should be in necessity to answer what answers I made to his former testimonies of them; and also to what testimonies I have produced against him.
And I finde him wary lest I should make this advantage of his resolution to wave the Fathers. He would make it to be no design but a rationall purpose, therefore he goes on.
But doe not think that I doe this, as if what you here said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me, or as if what you say were in the least degree hard to be answered, for you yourself cannot be ignorant that we alleadge plenty of the Fathers against you, as are confessed by your selves to have been the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church.
Ans. The rule is good, [...] And surely he is not damned that doth not believe, that all which is said by men on their own behalf is true. But secondly, they do not produce many testimonies of the prime Doctors of the Primitive Church; namely, not of the first 300 years; nay, nor of the first 600 years: others are Postnates and have not the honor of Primitive Antiquity: Yea, some they name as testimonies for them were not Fathers. And some works they cite for them which are falsely ascribed to true Fathers, as several of our Writers have demonstrated, even with the Confession of some of their Church. Thirdly, whereas he saies [Do not think that I do this as if what you have said against the authority of the Fathers found any credit with me] [Page 629] he wrongs me with a fallacie [...], if he would have men believe that I spake against the authority of the Fathers simply, because I spake against their authority as absolutely convictive of the understanding in point of truth. And also, whereas he saies it did not find credit with him, I am of his opinion: for certainly little is like to be believed by the Pontificians that is against them. But after this manner his Treatise might soon be answered; it finds not credit with me. One blot would serve for all the Treatise. Fourthly, what reason may this be called, the Pontificians use plenty of the Fathers against us; therefore he will not answer to my testimonies from them, nor to my answers to his testimonies against us. Doe any of those Pontificians fully answer my testimonies, and doe they sufficiently take off my answers? If they doe, he should have told me which, and where. But were I as apt to brag as the Romans are I might not be far from crying victoria, that I should stand to answer the Fathers and bring them to stand for us (though my Adversary saies, I bring them to lesse than nothing) and yet he that makes so much of them in shew, should detrect this way of plea by them.
Whereas their small errors used presently to be discovered and cryed down. This is not altogether true. For how many of their errors continued long: yea, great errors also, as the Millenarie opinion? And Infant Communion was not presently decreed neither. Therefore yet it remaines to be proved, that any of the points of difference betwixt the Papists and us was a standing opinion of the Primitive times, which my Adversary would insinuate: [...].
And it would make a learned man amazed to ask [Page 630] as you do, how few of them have touched upon our differences.
Ans. There is no such cause of Amazement. Learned men in generall wonder lesse, and learned men cannot wonder particularly at this, as knowing the reason, which was added by me, having not occasion by Adversaries: and therefore doth my Adversary wisely passe by any mention of the reason, as not being pertinent for his use. But also was that I said well guarded, first, how few, I did not say none. Secondly, I said touched, namely, as to handle, and this is necessary to be believed; because indeed there were few of them Argumentative: then though some of them might put out occasionally some expressions relating to our differences, yet is not this to touch argumentatively our differences; for, aliud agentis parva autoritas, as the rule is. And then thirdly, if many of them at least did not touch, so as to handle discursively all our differences, there is no cause of admiring my speech; for if they had handled some, not all, how should we have been directed in those which they had not handled? Now then let all be considered; then upon the whole matter let me say this, that if any Pontifician can prove, that many of them did handle argumentatively all the points of debate betwixt us, then I shall give leave for the amazement of my expression.
Therefore as to the Authors he produceth of his side, who give account of the Fathers in our diff [...] rences, as Coccius, Gualterus, the Author of the Progeny of the Catholicks and Protestants, or any other named by any other; I say this, that he should have told me particulary where each of them doth produce any Father and in what point, [Page 631] and also should have shewed in them, that many Fathers have all conjunctively spoken of the severall points; and also that they have spoken of them directly on purpose where the seat of the matter was; and also, that no where they contradict what in one place they said, or at least, did not elsewhere speak doubtingly: otherwise he concludes not any thing of weight against me. And then secondly, I can returne my Adversary number for number and weight for weight of our own, who have answered all the testimonies of the Fathers, which their learned Champions have produced, as Bishop Jewell, Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Reynolds, (besides Chamier of France) who have refuted the instances of the Fathers. Yea, the challenge of the first of them was never yet well answered as to the testimony of the Fathers. And thirdly, either the Fathers cannot be brought in with their suffrages for them, or they can: if they cannot, why doth Campian and others crack and brag of the Fathers? and then also my Adversaries Authors are disannulled. If they can, then either the Fathers speak contradictions, since we produce them as well for us, (and therefore cannot we be ruled by them) or else my Adversary needed not to have shifted the answering to them, but might have found other passages out of them to have commodiously reconciled the seeming variance. Yea, then either my Adversary had not such cause to rest infallibity in a Council, if all the Fathers of all ages agreed; or the consent of the Fathers might be a rule to the Council; and then my discourse of the Fathers had good conjunction with the Controversie about Councils.
As for the Author of the Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants, whom he brings in here, as handling [Page 632] a part all our main differences, and doth in all these points give us the very words of our own chief Doctors clearly acknowledging a great number of holy Fathers directly opposit to us in each one of these points.
To this I answer, that it is possible some of our Church may not meet with right editions of the Fathers; might not discerne their true works; might mistake the sense and application of some words, or not being able dexterously to reconcile their expressions to some other passages of the Fathers and to our opinions, might conclude them as opposit. If this Argument were good, then are they also bound to conclude the Fathers to be on our side, because Bellarmin produceth in his Disputations testimonies of the Fathers for us. Indeed he endeavours to answer those testimonies: but I dare affirme, that severall of those testimonies which the Author hath produced from our own side of the Fathers, may as well be answered as some of those which Bellarmin answers. Thirdly, my Adversaries might have known also, that there is a book written by none of ours which is a Confutation of Papists by Papists: So then, if they will set our Divines against us, we can set their Divines against them; yea, also in severall points were the testimonies of the Primitive Church urged against some of their points in the Trent Council by some of their Church. Fourthly, I have read Breerley through (it being commended to me by one who thought, I think, thereby to convince me in the case) and I can give no other account than as Mr. Chillingworth doth, that he hath not dealt exactly with the Confessions of those of our Church, as in the instance of some passages out of Mr. Hooker, as may be seen in Mr. Chillingworth, [Page 633] page 62. As also in a passage of Luther, as may be seen in Mr. Chilling. If the pages 79 and 92 be compared. And therefore have we no reason to be concluded against upon his word; yea, some of the authorities he bringeth do not respect the main points betwixt us: and as I remember, some authorities are not contradictory to our cause, and therefore was I rather confirmed by reading of that book. And therefore groundlesse is my Adversaries excuse for not medling with the holy Fathers in this Controversie betwixt us. Though they did not professedly discusse and determine our questions (and therefore cannot their authority so much sway us) yet their expressions for us might weigh with our Adversaries; who so much boast of them at least, they might say somewhat to what answers have been made to their quotations of them. And if we must not make use of them, because we cannot account them infallible, then my Adversaries discourse might have been also well spared, for I am sure his discourse is not infallible.
He having then dismissed the hearing of the Fathers sine die; he comes upon us thus. And indeed your Doctors would faine dispute out of Scripture onely.
Ans. If onely be taken in order to the ultimate resolution of faith, we would indeed dispute out of Scripture onely; because the Principles of Scripture are onely to us infallible, but if onely be taken exclusively to all use of the Fathers, we deny it. To shew that our Doctrine is truely Divine, we prove it out of Scripture: to shew that it is not new, we compare it with the sayings of the Fathers; yea, the judgement of the Fathers hath it self to faith as a rationall dispositive; but not as an inerrable [Page 634] determinative, this Priviledge we reserve to Scripture, which is to us the formall object and ground of Divine faith. And if they can shew us sic dicit Dominus, for absolute credence to the Church, we have done.
But he gives us his Crisis why we would faine dispute out of Scripture onely. Because they find it to be true, that the Scriptures alone cannot decide many Controversies but by some Interpretation or other, they think themselves able to elude the force of Arguments drawn from Scripture onely: the sayings which are not in Scripture are in no case receivable by them.
Ans. Well guessed. Surely we have here a meer Cavill by a non causa: doe not our Adversaries think that they are as cunning at interpretations as we? They are wont to brag of the brave Education and Learning: therefore likely they can tell how to elude an Interpretation as well as others, and there were those that told them they did do so in the Trent Council.—Catilina, Cethegum. And would not our Adversaries have all the dispute referred to the Church which they can order as they please as a Lesbian rule, either corrupting the stile or adultering the sense, as Tertullian said of the Hereticks then, or prohibiting Authors against them to be read? Yea, what debates were there about the sense of the Decrees of the Council of Trent? Yea, some decrees were purposely put into such termes of ambiguitie, that so the mind of the Council might be drawn into different senses according to the pleasure of the Litigants, as the Author of the History relates. Secondly, herein then appears our ingenuity, in that we dispute with you by that which is capable of other senses: whereas they would have [Page 635] us to be referred to the sense of the Church, which they think cannot be accommodated for us. Thirdly, we do not say, that no saying is receivable in any case by us but out of Scripture, but receivable equally upon necessity to salvation we still deny every saying: we receive sufficiently what is said by the Church in point of Discipline: and what is said in point of faith we receive with due reverence; not with absolute faith.
And certainly we seem to give more respect to the Church than they do to Scripture, if all of them be like my Adversary; for so he goes on. Whereas indeed there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture, but either to make men sick or mad, as our Adversaries may daily see by their fruitlesse Scripture-Combates with the Anabaptists, the Sabbatharians, and other upstart Sectaries.
Ans. Omne mendacium, quod de Deo dicunt, quodammodo genus est Idololatriae, as he said in his Prescriptions: and this which is falsely said of the word of God, is for the Idoll of the Roman Church. The Scripture hath it self to the Church as the Emperor to the Pope in the Roman account: and as the Moon hath it self to the Sun, so hath the Emperor himself to the Pope; the Moon depends upon the Sun for light, the Emperor upon the Pope for authority; and the Scripture upon the Church for light and authority. But first, he argues from the deniall of the act to the deniall of the power; yea, from the deniall of the effect to the deniall of the power; because there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture, therefore, but our obligation to Scripture doth not follow from the effect, but from the institution. Secondly, as for those points which are necessary there needs be no disputing upon the texts. Thirdly, the unsuccesse [Page 636] follows from the perversnesse of those who will [...], and have more mind to victory than verity. Fourthly, why had they then in the Trent Council the Bible in the midst of them? Why did the Divines urge Scripture? Yea, why did the Nicene Fathers determine the consubstantiality of the Son by Scripture? Yea, why did Tertullian combate with Marcion out of Scripture in his de carne Christi, ch. 6. Si non probant quia nec scriptum est: and again, sed nihil de eo constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet: and again, ch. 7. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. And why did he proceed against Hermogenes by Scripture, in his 22. ch. against him, Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem: and again, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina. But fifthly, if we should send the Sectaries to your Church for satisfaction, would this make an end of the differences? For the first question would be, how your Church was proved to be the infallible Church? The Scripture, all that do dispute out of it, do acknowledge to be the word of God: but all do not acknowledge your Church. Sixthly, if the Church could end so well all differences, why are so many questions undetermined, as about the Pope in relation to temporals, in relation to Councils: about predeterminations, about Immaculate Conception of the Virgin? Why are not these made an end of? Nay, seventhly, Hereticks have combated with the authority of the Church, and many were not satisfied with the determinations of Trent. Therefore let them not prejudice Scripture by the obstinacy of Sectaries. Had not the Sectaries been set on and armed with their principles they might sooner have been over come: and if nothing should be made use of for our necessary direction but that which is convictive of [Page 637] all, my Adversary might in reason have sate still, or brought better Arguments. Sectaries are not apt to be ruled by the meanes of Scripture: but his mediums are not apt to rule me without it.
But the Church of God is the Kings High way by which a man is ever to travell to truth.
Ans. I could smile at it, that Pontificians should use this expression, that the Church is the King's High way; when as some principles of some of the chief of them do dispose 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 th [...] way: and so the Scripture should not be necessary, which yet is held by the Papists generally, and elsewhere acknowledged b [...] 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 [Page 638] 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 [Page 639] 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 tak [...]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 [Page 641] to obey them universally it is not so. And it will not be Humility to obey them in all things reduplicatively, but Pride against God. Therefore the Apostles, who understand their duty, said, Acts 4, 19. Whether it be just to obey God or you, judge ye.
But it may be a generall Council cannot command any thing unlawfull; so they say. No? They cannot de jure; but surely it is possible: were not the Apostles then commanded, after the Council had consulted, not to preach in the name of Jesus? And if they say the Council erred not in faith herein, but in point of action, we answer, first, they erred in the faith of a practicall point: that practicall dictamen, that such a command might be laid upon them, was erroneous. Secondly, they erred, ex consequenti, in this most fundamentall point, that Jesus is the Christ. And therefore thirdly, they erred so far, as by their error they destroyed Christian Religion. Therefore infallibility doth not univocably belong to Councils: therefore may they erre: therefore are we not absolutely to obey them: therefore Humility doth not dispose simply to an obedience of faith; such Humility is voluntary humility, and not a virtue.
And the Divels Rebellion he speaks of, for want of Humility, is not much to his purpose, though true: will this consequence be weighty, the Divill by Pride rebelled against God, therefore we by Humility would believe a Council in whatsoever they say? we are disputing now upon the obedience of belief, as he would have it: now the Divill did not rebell against God in point of disbelief, which respects the understanding; but in point of independency, which respects the will. The Divels Rebellion was against God, as the Summum [Page 642] Bonum, not as the Summum Verum. For as to belief simple, if there were a proper obedience in it, they seem to believe still, and therefore to be obedient, if this were an obedience: because they are said to believe and tremble. And their Rebellion was a sin of malice; and this speaks a most free opposition of the will: but our unbelief of some things decreed in Councils, is necessary to the understanding as not seeing reason of assent; and therefore is it not to be charged upon want of Humillity.
Whereas then he says Pride is stiled the Mother of Heresie, it is easily distinguished, that in Heresie there are two parts, the materiall part, which is, the holding of that which is contrary to an Article of faith; and the formall part, which is the obstinate opposing the Church in it. Pride is the Mother of the latter: but it is not absolutely the Mother of the former. For the Apostles did not disbelieve at first the Resurrection of Christ upon pride. And then St. Paul could not have excused himself in the persecution of the Church, that he did it by ignorance, and so there could be no simple error. So that what he says is not here pertinent: for we are now in dispute about the obedience of faith, in his sense; not about the obedience of peace. His argument concludes the latter rather than the former.
And this he prompts me to in his next words, Now as Humility bringeth with her this necessary submission in the interiour: so Charity is the vertue which will be sure to see that peace and unity be kept exteriourly in the Church.
Ans. The former part is sufficiently evacuated, Humility and faith are not of the same Conjugation: faith historicall (which we speake of) or [Page 643] dogmatical, is subjected in the understanding; Humility is a morall vertue. And a morall virtue cannot be a speculative principle. Neither are they always of a combination. For he that is humble is not always in the right opinion; and he that is proud is not always in the wrong opinion. And if Pride were but symptomaticall to error, it would be ill for Rome. But for the latter part, that Charity will endeavour to keep peace and unity, is not like to be denied, yet we must see that our Charity and Unity be regular, we must not for Charity lose Truth; though in pursuance of Truth we must not lose Charity. We hold our own, and give good words of others. We would be one in judgement, and that is of Charity: but not by conforming to any in error; so we should forsake truth. However we will not differ in love; for we can love those that differ, and pray for them: and be ready to joine with them when they will leave their error, or not injoin it to us.
Indeed the use of Councils is more respective to the formal part of heresie: and therefore we do formally satisfie them in reverence and peace; duely weighing what they decree, and decreeing to hold what is due. Grant no other submission; and urge no other submission to any Councils, and we have done.
Here the first five lines do beg the question which we have been disputing of,Par. 15. and if they did of themselves prove any thing, would prove more than that he speaks of, exteriour unity. For if the Church did unerrably lead us into truth, as the Kings High way, then we should have one judgement and perswasion, which would make interiour unity. But though exteriour unity, as he speaks, is not sufficient to his dispute, yet is it enough for [Page 644] the demand of the Church visible. The Church invisible (which, as such, hath a necessary connexion with salvation) consists of those who do agree as one in points proposed by God, because they are to be believed; and are ready to believe what is to be believed because proposed, when the proposall is clear. But the Church visible is contented with his exteriour unity, which is not broken by private suspension of assent, for this exteriour unity is sufficiently conserved, negatively, by a non opposition. Exteriour unity is contradistinguished to interiour, he provides for exteriour unity, then he provides for that which is contradistinguished to faith. What then is become of the application of all his discourse to faith in Councils?
But to let this passe. I see he doth not like my Syllogism for him. I put his matter in as good a form as it would bear in short and categorically: but he is not pleased with it; and therefore without further answer to it, he says, he will do it yet more clearly for himself in this manner: under pain of damnation all are bound to agree in this, that every one interiourly giveth an infallible assent to all such points as are necessary to be believed for salvation: but all can never be brought to agree in giving enteriourly this infallible assent to all such points, without they submit their assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility. Therefore all can never be brought to agree in that in which they are bound to agree under pain of damnation, without they all submit their interiour assent to some living Judge indued with infallibility.
This is his Syllogism. And an answer is expected to it, although he would give no answer to mine, which gave him a distinction able enough to save the text, he seems to build upon, from his [Page 645] impropriation of it. Yet we will give answer to his own form.
And as to his major, we grant it, that whatsoever is necessary to salvation is so far necessary to be believed as it is injoined unto salvation. And that proposition of his is clearer than his proof; for his reason doth not infer it, namely, because all are obliged to please God, and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God. Ebr. For let the reason be put into form of an argument, and then let any one see whether it will be cogent thus: all are obliged to please God and to have that faith without which it is impossible to please God; therefore his major is true, under pain of damnation all are bound to agree, &c. No, one and the other are true, but one is not proved to be true by the other: that axiom in the scope of it speaks of a faith as to that place onely in this particular, that there is a God. And therefore doth not this text aptly prove a necessity of interiour assent to all points necessary to be believed for salvation. It seems by the compendiousnesse of that text, that very few principles are necessary to be believed unto salvation, because (according to my Adversary) we may please God with the belief according to this text, which intends but that one main Principle, that there is a God, and that he is a rewarder of them that dilligently seek him. And so this will abate the plea of Mr. Cressy and of my Adversary, who contend, that there is a great number of things which are necessary to be believed under pain of damnation. And if he would extend that text virtually to a necessity of particular perswasion, that whatsoever we do is lawfull (as if it should have the same sense with that of the Apostle, whatsover is not of faith is sin) [Page 646] First, that is not the meaning of the text. And then secondly, so it would exceed his purpose, which is for points of faith: for so it would also have reference to things indifferent; unto which the other text is properly applied.
Well, let us see his minor proved. He proveth it thus, An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority, and no other infallible authority sufficient to breed this agreement in their interiour assent to all points necessary can be assigned but the authority of the Church. Well, the major of this Syllogism we grant: but first, how proves he the minor? (And yet we might also except against the form of it; for it should be thus for the minor, but there is no infallible authority but the Church; and yet so the form is not right neither; for the medium is not duly placed) But how proves he the minor? For this is yet to us the question: out of question he may prove what he will, if he can make the question proof. And therefore lest his minor should appear to be grosly false, (for he by and by acknowledgeth the Scriptures authority to be infallible) and lest that minor, as it should be formed, should not fully infer the minor of his prosyllogism, he shuffles in in the minor of his last, more than should be.
And let me now make use of his principles. Without faith it is impossible to please God. In all definitions of the Church I cannot have faith. Therefore in all definitions of the Church I cannot please God. The first proposition is Scripture, and a principle which he also useth. My second proposition I prove by his proof of his, thus. An infallible assent cannot be built but upon submission to an infallible authority. The Church is not yet [Page 647] proved to have infallible authority; therefore cannot we have infallible assent in the definitions of the Church, and by consequent, not faith; for faith is in the nature of it an infallible assent.
Then towards the confirmation of his last minor, he comes over with the deniall of this property to Scripture, The authority of Scripture, though infallible, doth not give us clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation, as I shall shew in the next chap. This is begging of the question in the second chap. not in the third, if it be there proved, but here he affords me then that which is a positive minor to my last Syllogism against him; and compleatly it is made by his own principles now, infallible assent is not built but upon submission to an infallible authority. The Authoritie of Scripture is infallible. Therefore, Both his own propositions. Onely the form of the discourse follows his.
But notwithstanding its infallible authority, he says, It doth not give clear texts to ground our infallible assent upon them in all points necessary to salvation. So that now all the question seems to be reduced to the debate about the clearness of the texts. He seems not to deny the texts in the subject, but denies them in the adjunct of clearnesse. Ans. First, if there be texts for all points necessary materially, then is that main opinion of the Papists about traditions sunk: for since they are said to come in upon way of supply of what is not set down at all in Scripture, and yet is necessary to be believed, then if all be set down in Scripture, but some things not clearly, then have we no need of any new matter of traditions, but only of traditive Interpretations, which what they are, and where [Page 648] they are, who can tell? Secondly, if he supposeth more points necessary to salvation than indeed are necessary, (as they are wont to do) then indeed the Scripture doth not afford clear texts for all things necessary in their opinion; yea, none at all for some of their opinions: but as to those things which are really necessary, so we deny it. The Scripture hath sufficient clearnesse for all things necessary upon due account. Thirdly, The Councils do give us no other sense of those texts which are not clear in themselves, than they are capable of: do they? No, he will say; for then they should not declare the sense of Scripture, but make it; which their greatest Doctors, when they are in their sober minds, do deny, then are we determined in the Controversies by those texts, and not by the authority of the Councils. The Councils do but rub the glasse that we may see more clearly the sense, but it is the sense which decides the point. They do not make the way of truth, but shew it, and therefore the Church is not the High way, but the Scripture. If they by their discussion and discourse add one degree of claritude to those texts, must the causality formal of the assent be attributed to their authority? They do but make clear the object; the assent of faith is not to the degree of clearnesse, but to the object cleared. Fourthly, what if some of the greatest Doctors do give all this power of explication of ambiguous Scripture to the Pope, and he constitutes the sense imperially, not expounds it rationally; and makes his authority antecedent to the sense, and not the sense antecedent to their definition; but ipso facto this must be the meaning thereof, because he saith so? Is this a clearing of the Scripture? Fifthly, it must be clear to me that the [Page 649] Councils have cleared the difficulty: otherwise I should deny my assent to the text, because it is not clear in the construction, and yet should give my assent to the Councils determination, and yet this not clear to me neither. Now then, if they will have us judge of the definition of the Council, that so we may determine our assent, (for we must by judgement conclude the Council clearly to determine the sense in question, or else we cannot give any due assent) why will they not allow us to judge also of the sense of Scripture, that so rationally we may believe it? Sixthly, as the clarity is wanting, (as I suppose he means) but to some texts, so also but to some persons; and therefore is there not an absolute need to all of this infallible Judge. Yea, how many took liberty to suspend their assents to the determinations of the Council of Trent: and yet they would have a Council to be binding to others? Seventhly, is the defect of the degree of claritude negative or privative? not privative; for that will charge God. And so that of Nilus will be true to be sure, he that accuseth the Scripture accuseth God: but if negative, it is no other than God thought fit for his word. And do we think that God would require, under pain of damnation, belief to his word, and yet not give unto it competent clearnesse respectively to the points of faith necessary to be believed? Eighthly, what then must we think, as towards their salvation, of all those antient Christians for some centuries, wherein they had not a Generall Council? were they all lost? Or had they faith without a Generall Council? If the former, how do they say the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church? And why do they also not dis-acknowledge those times of the [Page 650] Church to have been the purest? And were so many of them Martyrs and yet lost? But if the latter, then also may we have faith without a Generall Council sufficiently to salvation. Ninthly, the senses of Scripture as to particular points were clear to the Fathers in the Council severally before they gave their suffrages on either part; were they not? If not, how came they to vote for that sense which was right? If so, then the product of the Councils definition is not it which clears the sense of the Scripture to them, and consequently not to us. Tenthly and lastly, if the Scripture doth not give us clear texts for all points necessary, and therefore we must stand to the authority of the Church; then also the Church shall not be it upon which we rely as a competent Judge; because the Church, even in a Council, doth not deliver the sense of Scripture so clearely as to end all controversies. And this manifestly appears by perusall of the Trent History, wherein it frequently occurs, that the Decrees and Canons were so framed as to give a liberty of divers senses for more satisfaction, and satisfaction to more.
And this last account in this last particular doth make sufficient reply to what he speaks in the ten next following lines; wherein he objects to me the difference of those amongst us to proceed from our acknowledgement of Scripture to be the triall of faith. Surely he did not the same day consider the differences at home. It is not proper to object that which is common, we can retort it mutatis mutandis, And we see with our eys those who submit to the authority of the Church as infallible, to disagree [Page 651] mainly in these very points, which the Synod hath spoken of: for one thinketh in his Conscience the Church is to be understood one way, another thinketh in his Conscience it is to be understood another way; and this other is licensed (interpretatively by the Synod) to differ even from the greatest authority upon earth, as the other thinks; because he thinks the Synod hath defined for him. And then he may easily have license to differ from another private man, and that other private man hath as good ground to differ from the other. So our Adversaries incussion of our differences amongst us is patly repercussed upon them; and with more weight and edge too; because secondly, we holding a difference of points by the matter, are capable of more excuse for our disagreements in things not fundamentall; than they, who holding all equally upon the proposall of the Church, must needs differ in that which is equally fundamentall; because all that is defined by the Church is equally so. Yea, also he that errs in one point with the Papists, according to Mr. Knot's argument, hath faith in none. And one of them that differ about the sense of the Council must needs err, though it is undetermined which. And therefore thirdly, would not my Adversaries have been pleased with such an argument from me, The Pontificians do disagree, therefore their opinion is the cause thereof, and if that should be the cause, we should all disagree, and in all. Neither fourthly, doe we license any to differ, but they take their natural liberty to suspend assent till they see the word of God, as well as upon good reasons you move men to chuse your Religion. And therefore, as to necessaries, Scripture is the possible means of [Page 652] Ʋnion in the interior man, in which faith onely doth consist.
And this Union we are to consider in order to Salvation; not the exteriour union, which is not so necessary, though simply desirable. As far as truth will go, it must go with it, but not further. And yet this is now and then mingled in the discourse of my Adversary: and very politickly; because the Church hath more conjunction with an exteriour union of peace, than an interiour of faith.
What you add of God his sufficiently providing for his Church by Scripture onely is in this sense true, that in Scripture we read that we are to hear the Church, &c.
Ans. Surely I do not owe, in ingenuity, any thanks to any Adversary of mine for this, that they seem thus to please themselves in a study how to make our opinion tollerable. If I do, I will soon be out of debt, as soon as I can say, that their opinion, about the Church to be the High way to truth, is so far true; because it was wont to send us to the Scripture for our rule of faith and manners; as hath been shewed. Secondly, what Council ever determined the sense of that precept, goe tell the Church to be understood of a Council as to bind absolutely to the belief of all that they propound? And if a Council had not defined this the sense, then how shall we know it to be the sense, by my Adversary; because he saies, we must resolve our faith in the authority of a Council? and if it hath defined that the sense, how came they to have authority to define this to be the sense of the place? If not clear to this purpose, how came they to divine infallibly [Page 653] this sense? for the Scripture according to them did not appear to have this sense without a Council; then, who gave authority to the first Council to give this infallibly to be the sense? If clear, then have we no such necessity of an infallible Judge for umpiring of litigant senses, Thirdly, Tell it to the Church, ex vi authoritatis, as to teach: not ex vi infallibilitatis, in teaching: in regard of authority as to persons: not infallibility, as to truth. Representatively, in the office; not absolutely, in the matter. We are to hear them as authorized to teach: but not simply to believe them, as if they were assisted not to err. He that is appointed by Christ, and doth say that which is false, is not to be believed; because, if he saies that which is true, it is not to be accounted true, because he saies so, but he is to be accounted as to speak true, because it is so: yea, they may know that that text was applied by Christ as to censure in points of trespasse, not to obedience in points of faith.
Not that Scripture alone by her self endeth all our differences, &c.
Ans. Who ever said so? Who is his Adversary? It were easie to have the victory without an Adversary, if possible. No; Nor the Church alone by her self. But we say also, the Scripture doth not formally end any, as they would have a living Judge; and yet is not deficient in necessaries; for by proposing plainly what is necessary, it concludes necessarily against the necessitie of a living Judge infallible. What is necessary more than to believe that which is necessary? And therefore no need of traditions: and what more plain than that there [Page 654] is no need of an infallible Judge, as to salvation; since what is necessary is plainly delivered in Scripture? It is sufficient in the matter for necessaries: and it is clear enough in the manner, as to points of faith understood signanter. And would we be ruled by Scripture, there would be fewer Controversies in the Church, and of the Church. And were not their Church a party for it self, it would give all to Scripture. The interess of the Church hath brought in traditions, not for salvation, but for its authority. And the Scripture must not clearly have delivered all points necessary, because then what reputation would be given to the authority and magnificence of the Church?
But we are invited much to the third chap. and expectation is raised, wherein he saies, when I shall have fully set down the state of the question, you shall find all that you add in this place presently answered.
Ans. This, he sayes, should be done before it be said. If he will prove, that we must err in point of salvation without obedience to their judge. If he will prove, that all error is damnative: and if he can prove, that their Church, or the Church hath not erred, yea, cannot err; then we will excuse him for repetitions in the third chap. for he cannot come off handsomely with answering in a third chap. what was said in a former, more fully, unlesse he saies much more to what is said, than what he hath yet said. But we do not prejudice his Judge.
CHAP. III Shewing that since Scripture alone doth sufficiently propose all things necessary to salvation, there is no need of a living Judge infallible.
HEre he saies at first,Num. 1. You deliver your opinion in your answer to my third Num. p. 12. thus. And then he tels me my opinion; of which he says, no proof was given by you untill you came to this present place. For proof he hath had as much as could reasonably be required, and more, I suppose, than he desired. But I was to follow him: and therefore he was not to accuse me. And he might then have begun with the proof, if he would have made short work.
He then prepares himself to reinforce the combate. And therefore he saies, And first, I will take leave to state this question a little more fully and distinctly.
Ans. He useth his own right, if he will state the question more fully and distinctly; and it is right to do so. All good discourse begins with a definition: and all regular disputes with the state of the question. And it will be a favor to me, if he does it well; for we shall have done the sooner. And so he ends his first number.
Your assertion then is, Num. 2. that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture.
Ans. Yes, this is my assertion. And I am not ashamed of it yet: for it is not mine alone; but [Page 656] the Scriptur's; and St. Austin's, and others, as he hath heard before.
In this assertion there be two things which needfull, and distinct declaration; the first is to declare these words [necessary to salvation] the second to declare those words [plainly set down.]
Ans. Content, let him be as good as his word, onely let him take care he doth not, as some he knew, confound that which is to be distinguished, and distinguish that which is to be confounded. So let him turn his answering to what I said against his assertion into an opposition of mine.
And first, concerning those words necessary to salvation, they must of necessity be understood so, that all things are plainly set down in Scripture, which are necessary, first, to the universall Church, as it is a Community. Secondly, all things necessary to all states and degrees that must needs be in this Community. Thirdly, all things necessary to every person bound to be of this Community.
Ans. This way he thought to destroy my assertion, as Mr. Cressy does, to destroy the assertion of Mr. Chillingworth: but it will not do. For here is he faulty, in confounding that which is to be distinguished. He should have distinguished betwixt necessaries to salvation, and necessaries to the universall Church, as it is a Community: though all that is necessary to salvation is necessary to the Church taken confusely of the persons: yet whatsoever is necessary to the universall Church as a Community, is not necessary to salvation; for then before there was a competent aggregation in a Community, there was no possibility of salvation. And that Community [Page 657] is to be saved by the holding of things necessary, is it not? Yes, he would say, then this Community doth not come in to integrate things necessary to salvation: and if not, then those things which are necessary to this Community, doth not come in neither. Then he should have done well, secondly, to have distinguished betwixt a Church in its being, and in its well being. All things are not necessary to the being of a Church, which are requisite to the bene esse of it. Now salvation may be had in a Church which hath not its due well being. And thirdly, he might have distinguished betwixt necessity absolute and necessity of Convenience, with the School-men. All things are not necessary in the first kind, which are necessary in the latter. Now we are upon necessaries in the first kind. And as to these, fewer things there are of this order. These things are confounded for their advantage. But also he seems to distinguish what is to be confounded; for he seems to make some things necessary for the universall Church, as a Community. Whereas more is not necessary to the universall Church upon the formality of a Community. This was touched before; but herein he doth distinguish where he should not distinguish.
And thus by distinguishing what is not to be distinguished, and by confounding what is to be distinguished, he would confound me in the change of the state of the question. But this vain and captious. For the state of the question respects men in communi, not in a Community. Then secondly, suppose that the Scripture had not given us generall directions concerning the constitution of the Church, and the Officers of it, and the power of those Officers, and obedience to that power in [Page 658] things of free observation in themselves, yet our assertion would be sound and good, that the Scripture doth set down plainly all things necessary to salvation. Some were saved before such a Community: some may be saved who are wrongfully put out of such a Community; and some may be saved after such a Community is obscured, and in the darke, as they confesse the Church shall be in the time of Antichrist. But then thirdly, the Scripture hath sufficiently provided, and as much as is necessary to be sure, how the Church is to be provided in all times and places of lawfull Pastors. And also what power the Pastors should have in respect of one another, or in respect to their particular flocks. And how those laws they make should bind without appointing how many should be assembled to this effect. And also who should call this Assembly, who preside in it, when there are Christian Magistrates; at least negatively, not the Pope, (who hath nothing to shew for himself in Scripture) nor the Antient Church. And also when it is to be accounted lawfull, when unlawfull. This is sufficiently determinable in Scripture by analogie to the Jewish Kings, and to the Assembly spoken of in the fifteenth of the Acts. As for the outward administration of these Assemblies will they say, it is de jure Divino? And as for the question, whether the Precepts of this Assembly oblige under pain of damnation, to the keeping of Feasts, or Fasts, or Eaves, we say first, it doth appear in Scripture, that obedience to lawfull authority is due indefinitely and in generall; when there is no reall exception against the matter. And therefore by the Command of God are we bound in obedience to them, injoyning nothing but that which is lawfull. But though they do bind under pain of [Page 659] damnation; yet is not this a point necessary to be known under pain of damnation. The question with us is not whether they do thus bind, but whether we cannot be saved without the knowledge whether they do thus bind. And if we may be saved without this knowledge, then is it not necessary to Salvation, that this should be determined. For though it be necessary for us to know that all sin is damnative (and this is sufficiently laid down in Scripture, as Rom. 6. last:) yet is it not necessary under pain of damnation that we should know every sin that is damnative; for then we should have no pardon for secret sins by generall Repentance; and then who could be saved? And therefore though to every one that knows that this is a true proposition, that Precepts of the Assembly do bind under pain of damnation, it is necessary to exercise actuall particular Repentance for those transgressions which he knows; yet to him that knows not the truth of this proposition it is not. And this is known to be a school question. And though they bind more than in case of scandall and of contempt, yet must their obligation mediate be understood to be qualified after the manner of the ceremoniall law, not the morall; and therefore in competition with morals their binding is relaxed. Again, if it were necessary that those observations should be generall, why did not the first Councils establish them? Yea, it seems, it was not necessary that all such observations should be universally practised: For then how came the Eastern and Brittish Churches to differ from the Roman observation of Easter, notwithstanding their pretences of preeminence? Yea, one of the Antients in application to the observing of Easther, which for the time he thought was free, [Page 660] gave this sentence, in Eusebius. [...]; the difference of fast commends the agreement of faith. And therefore my Adversary doth, amongst his Festivities he mentions, wisely conceal the mention of Easter, because he knew the differences from the Roman Church in that particular.
And for the same form of publick service, which ought to be imposed on all, and when all are bound to be present at it; would any one say, that considers what he saies, that this is necessary to be, and to be known unto salvation? If he means to be imposed upon all, in the Catholick Church, what Scripture, or what Father, or what Council hath he for it? Indeed Ignatius in one of his Epistles, sayes, [...] but this was spoken as to a particular Church. And some cannot come to Church; and may not they be saved? and some particular nations must have some particular passages which are common to all the parts of that nation and not to other nations. And doe Canonicall hours so bind, as, not to be where they are, or not to assist always, upon morall necessity, excludes de se from Heaven? When the time of Antichrist comes, according to them, surely their Canonical hours will not be in season; and yet they will say, salvation may be had in the Church. Whereas necessaries to salvation do not fall under a necessity to be dispensed with. And therefore if such observances are excusable by accidents, it is sure that they are not in our sense necessary. These are onely juris positivi, as they distinguished in the Trent Council: but to be sure that which is necessary to salvation is juris Divini.
But what Sacraments are to be administred the Scripture telleth us expressely. For time, it is not [Page 661] necessary to have it determined, nor how often; but for the essentiall form it is set down: the externall manner is not simply necessary. Here he confounds cunningly, and mixeth somewhat necessary with somewhat not necessary. Neither doth he distinguish betwixt necessity of precept and necessity of meane, somewhat is necessary in the former way which is not necessary in the latter. And this latter is it with which we have to debate upon, in the right state of the question.
All these things, he says, are necessary to a Church as a Community. To follow him again, we say, first, that we deny that all these things are absolutely necessary to a Church as a community: for severall Churches have differed from one another in some of them; as in Fasts, and in the keeping of Easter, and in forms of Prayer: for as for the Liturgies they talk of, they are filii populi. Secondly, though necessary to a Church, yet not simply necessary to salvation. Thirdly, some of them may be necessary to a Church visible, not necessary to the Church as invisible: but he tampers about the change of the state of the question, to make what is necessary to salvation to be necessary to a Church as visible; and whatsoever is necessary to a Church as visible; to be necessary to salvation; which cannot be true. For as for that, that there is no salvation to be had out of the Church, (according to that of St. Cyprian, in his Tract. de simplicitate Prelatorum, Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem) yet this is to be understood of those that are desertors of the Church, as is to be seen there by the comparation of antecedents and consequents and the whole scope of the Tract. And therefore simply what is necessary to a Church visible is not [Page 662] necessary to salvation; because, without contradiction to the Father, it may be possible to have salvation without the Church. And therefore may I conclude that my Adversary did not well comply with his promise of stating this question a little more fully and distinctly.
And yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture, whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians.
Ans. All he says is not true. For the Sacraments are plainly enough set down in Scripture; for all that is therein essentiall and necessary. Then secondly, the Argument is not concluding, these things are not plainly set down in Scripture, therefore very many and very important differences amongst Christians. For first the unplainesse of them in Scripture is no efficient cause thereof; for they might in those things give every one their liberty in their particular Churches; as St. Cyprian doth plainly shew us in his second B. first Ep. where having spoken of some who did hold those things which they did once take up, he speaks notwithstanding—sed, salvo inter Collegas pacis et Concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria quae apud se semel sunt usurpata, retinere; quae in re nec nos cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in Ecclesiae administrationis voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisquae praepositus, rationem actus sui Domino redituras. So he: Therefore may they not all practise the same thing, and yet there be no morall difference: if negative differences, not positive contentions: if some, yet not many: if many, yet not important, in point of salvation, because each Bishop in his Church hath free power to establish what he thinks fit. And what Generall Council [Page 663] hath bound the universall Church in all these particularities? Yea, again, the unplainess of these things in Scripture is not the causa sine quae non of these differences: for there are differences with the Roman Church against others, even in some things which are plainly set down in Scripture: as in point of justification, against Images to be worshipped: against half Communion; and generally the differences betwixt us. And indeed what is there so plain about which some have not differed? And then again, how is this mended by a Council? Not by their Council of Trent; because in their Decrees the sense is not plain. Therefore let them find better provision than God hath made directly in Scripture, before they find fault with Gods direction as to those things which are important unto salvation: for otherwise the term is [...], it is beside the state of the question.
Nextly, he objects the differences amongst us about Bishops with such and such a power and authority, and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons, and without these no true Sacraments, things so necessary to the salvation of all men.
Ans. This is a question belonging rather to the Church than to salvation: and therefore we need not say any more to it. Yet secondly, the differences amongst us are for the most part stirred upon the occasion of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore the Pontificians have no cause to impute to us as a fault the disagreement of Protestants in this point; because it ariseth in great part from the domination of the Bishop of Rome. They thought by an [...], that they could never sufficiently gainsay the Roman Bishop but by cashiering the whole genus; and [Page 664] therefore to make all sure, they denied all Bishops; since the Argument is good a negatione generis ad negationem speciei; if no Bishop, then not universal. Indeed here they erred, if they thought that the position of Bishops did inferr the universall: for it doth not follow a positione generis ad positionem speciei determinatae: and therefore they might have Bishops, and not him. Yea, the holding of Bishops by Divine right is as like a mean to destroy the Pope's authority as any other. And to this purpose was it so holty disputed in the Trent Council: and some lost their favor with the Pope for being eager in the affirmative. And in the promotion of Cardinals at the end of the Synod, the Pope professed he would passe by those who had stood for Residence and Bishops to be jure Divino. For this institution of them by Divine right made them not to depend upon the Pope, which would weaken his authority.
And therefore as to the Controversie about Bishops, whether we derive them and their authority from Scripture, my Adversary might have done well to have said nothing: since if it be necessary to be determined clearly, then the Trent Council is to be blamed for not determining it. If it be not necessary, then why doth he put it in amongst necessary questions. To this therefore we say no more than thus, Had there not been Bishops there would not have been a Pope; (and therefore is this an argument that there were Bishops in the Antient Church, for how otherwise could there have been a Bishop universall) so also had there not been a Pope, there would have been lesse contention about Bishops: as appears by this, that if Petrus Balma, who was the last Bishop of Geneva, would have turned Protestant, he might have continued Bishop.
As for no true Sacraments without Priests and Deacons, we say, if he takes Priests in a proper sense, we deny that there is now any such to be; because there is now no reall externall sacrifice. If he takes it in the Analogicall sense, we have no reason to doubt of true Priests; being rightly ordained. And for those who have not Bishops, some of them would have them, if it were in their power; as Bogerman said, in the Council of Dort, when that Government was commended to him, Domine nos non sumus adeo felices. And as for those who are ordained without Bishops (were this our case) we may be as sure they are true Ministers, as the Papists can assure themselves that they have true Priests; in respect of the uncertainties they are under of the due intention of the Priest in Baptism, and of the Bishop in Ordination.
As to Deacons; they might have been left out of the rank with Priests as to true Sacraments, for it will not appear that Deacons are appointed jure Divino to assist the Ministers in the Sacraments; and if so, yet not to be necessary to true Sacraments, that they do assist, otherwise no true Sacraments. What shall this also with the Romans goe into the account of articles of faith? And shall this be as necessary to be believed as that Jesus is the Christ?
Sacraments, things so necessary to the salvation of all men. This we have spoken to before: and it comes in here under a simple diction, and not positively (as it may be interpteted) affirmed; or if [so necessary] be to be taken signanter, then is it more easily denied, as to all men. Our former distinction is yet good, necessary by necessity of precept, not by necessity of mean. Neither is the other Sacrament so necessary as that: and yet are [Page 666] they put together upon equall necessity. The Sacraments bind us, not God, to work only by them. And also are they administred as duely with us as elswhere.
Then he brings in a Syllogism against us out of my own words, What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary: but it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authority.
Thus he would bring in some of those who differ from them, and us in this point, disputing against Bishops. But how would he conclude? Therefore not necessary to salvation? unlesse he concludes thus, it doth not contradict us in our debate. And if he does conclude so, he concludes beside their intention: for they would conclude no more than that they are not necessary to the Government of the Church: because it is not held by others, that this Government with such and such authoritie is simply necessary to salvation.
But to the assumption, we say, dato, that the Government of the Church by Bishops with such and such power is not plainly set down in Scripture; yet let them shew as much out of Scripture with the practice of the Church for the Bishop of Rome his being universall Bishop, as we can shew out of Scripture for Bishops with some authority superior to Presbyters; and I shall think better of their cause. And therefore let them remember, Parvi sunt foris Arma nisi est Consilium domi. Let them make sure at home before they combate us with our own contentions. For secondly, as for such and such authority, if he takes it for the Mathematicall point and indivisible degree, which the Bishop must have, of authority over the rest of the [Page 667] Clergie; who is there that so contends it, but the Roman? Some superiority in the latitude may be able to conserve the form: and this is more easily proveable out of Scripture with the practice of the Church.
But thirdly, since he hath brought the Antepiscoparians upon the stage to make sport for them; what will the Pontificians say, if this argument be in earnest brought against them, whatsoever is necessary is plainly set down in Scripture? Government by Bishops with such and such authoritie is not plainly set down in Scripture, therefore not necessary. The major proposition is yet true and good against all his batteries. The minor is to have their advice, whether they will affirm it or deny it; let them speak categorically: is it plainly set down or not? If it be plainly set down, then this instance is against them, if it be not plainly set down, then they have nothing plainly set down for the Bishop of Rome upon the former rule: if there be no Bishop plainly set down, then not the Bishop of Rome. This he gets by our contentions.
As for the form of ordaining Priests or Presbyters, it is sufficiently set down, and we have it practised with us without the Patin and the Chalice: and that none but those who are Priests formally or eminently, as being more, should blesse the bread and consecrate the Sacrament; this is clearly enough set down; and what kind of bread for the Sacrament, as much as is necessary, is set down. The Pontifician hath no reason, if he considers himself, to urge all particularities about the Sacraments, since he accounts them so necessary: would God pinch that which is necessary under so many contingences, which he [Page 668] doth not ordinarily provide against? Therefore either they are not necessary; and then why are they insisted in? Or if necessary; yet not in all the severall circumstances: for then under how many accidentalities should salvation be included?
He says then, he could add many more particulars to the former kind no lesse necessary to be decided. If no more necessary, it is not like to trouble us. Or if necessary, they should be decidable by plain Scripture. Yes, if necessary to salvation. And then your Doctors could not jarr about them. This I deny, and he had better have taken our grant, that those of this sort are not plainly set down in Scripture, unlesse he had proved it more strongely than by our differences. It is possible to differ in plain things: but we need not. [...], St. Mark the 6. 53. And again this is retorted. Many things might be named which were in the opinion of some Pontificians no lesse necessary to be decided, than the point of originall sin, the immaculate conception of the Virgin, the point of Residence and of Bishops whether by Divine right; and yet are they not determined in the Trent Council: no nor those neither positively. But it may be they are not necessary: for if necessary they should be decidable by plain Decree of Council: and then the Doctors could not jarr about them. But to give a further check to this unreasonable exacting of such particularities to be plainly decided by Scripture: let them consider generally how little was affirmatively defined and clearly in the Council of Trent. Yea, for further instance, are these severals which he hath pointed at more necessary to be decided than the point of Indulgences, which was the main point [Page 669] which occasioned the divisions of the Council consequently? And yet was not this sufficiently handled: yea, as the Author of the History says, the Protestants complained that the Synod had passed it over without clearing any doubt or deciding any Controversie. If they could not or would not, how shall we be bound under pain of damnation to take 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. Ʋbi 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 [Page 671] 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 [Page 672] 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 [Page 674] 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: [Page 675] 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 [Page 676] 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 [Page 677] name. 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 [Page 678] 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 [Page 679] 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 [Page 680] 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 down in Scripture? [Page 681] For though we have not the formall and materiall number of things distinctly to be believed: yet all that is distinctly to be believed may be plainly set down there. And therefore if we believe them, we believe sufficiently. Therefore if he takes the terme, [distinctly] in this sense, that we must necessarily know, that this is one of the points necessary to be believed, we deny it, of every point that is necessary: although we may say so of some, as that Jesus is the Christ; because in Scripture salvation is denied any other way, as, Acts. 4.12. If he takes the term as signifying that some things are actually and explicitly to be believed, we grant it; but the consequence so is not valid. Secondly, this returnes upon them, and therefore should they not have moved this stone. For where have they set down a list of all those things which by every of them are necessary to be believed distinctly in contradistinction to their implicit faith? And if they say, that they are ready distinctly to believe whatsoever is proposed by the Church: so we say, that we are also ready to believe whatsoever shall be sufficiently proposed out of Scripture. And sure we have as good cause for an implicit faith as to Scripture; as they have as to the Church. And if Mr. Knot's judgement be the sense of the Roman Church, there is but one fundamentall point, of them actually and distinctly to be believed, in which are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation, in these words, we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God. If any be of another mind, all Catholicks denounce him to be no Catholick. So he. And therefore why do they urge a particular and Inventory of all [Page 682] points distinctly to be believed, when they content themselves with one Generall? If the Church must be proved by Scripture, as formerly we have shewed, and according to St. Austin, then one generall comprehensive point might more reasonably be sufficient for us, and that is this, we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever plainly appeares to be revealed by Almighty God in Scripture. But yet we do not content our selves thus; for we say all points necessary are distinctly to be believed; and they may distinctly be believed, because they are plainly delivered; more plainly than the Decrees of Councils, at least the Trent Council. And he that says he is bound to believe all that is contained in Scripture, when clearly proposed to him as such, by consequent is ready to embrace all points necessary, because they are plainly delivered. Therefore indeed is our opinion more agreeable to a distinct account of what is to be expressely believed than theirs, because we make a distinction in point of credibility by the matter; saying, that some things are plainly proposed, because necessary to be believed, though all things are necessary to be believed when plainly proposed. The former sort whereof requires absolute belief; the latter conditionate to the competent appearance of them to be such as God hath shewed to come from him by revelation.
He proceeds. Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday. Every one is bound not to have two Wives at one time. Not also to marry within such or such a degree of Consanguinitie. Where are all these things plainly set down in Scripture?
Ans. Some things are neither de fide, nor de verbo fidei; as that the Bishop of Rome is the universall Bishop of the Church. Some things are de verbo fidei, yet not de fide, in propriety of phrase, as necessary in the matter; as namely historicall truths, as that Jesus rode to Jerusalem. Some things are de verbo fidei and de fide also, as that Jesus is the Christ, that whosoever believeth shall be saved. The question now betwixt us is of the last kind, whether Scripture with sufficient clearnesse sets down all those things which are de fide in this sense. So that my Adversary was to prove that these particulars are so necessary to be believed, that no man who doth not believe them distinctly can be saved. And while he saith so, that they are such, and doth not prove them, we need say no more than that he doth not prove them. Asserentis est probare. And I am not to answer unto words but Arguments. Yet secondly, these are sufficiently knowable by Scripture, the first by the equity of the fourth Commandement, and the intimations thereof in the new Testament. The second by God's own institution in state of innocency, and by the first Ep. to the Cor. 7.2. But for fornication, let every man have his own wife, [...]. And yet if they will hold that this is one of the practick credibles in the foresaid necessity, they doe endanger the condition of those Jews who had more wives. And also they will incurre the danger of being engaged to answer for that Pope, who as before, gave liberty to take another wife. And for the third it is sufficiently declared, as to the necessity of knowledge and practice in Levit. 18. And if to the knowledge what is to be done in these we are so strictly obliged by the law of God, as that if we misse a degree we [Page 684] are damned, it must also be made as clear as whatsoever is necessary, that the law of God hath given unto the Pope a faculty and power of dispensing as to Mariages, within those degrees. If the law of God hath not made these cases of Mariage as plain as is necessary for those who are not so studious to know the utmost of their liberty, as to resolve a negative of practice upon any appearance to the contrary, then the law of God must as clearly, as to exclude doubt, shew unto us that infallible directory, whereby we may come exactly to the knowledge of what is to be done herein. And if this can be made to appear, why is it not?
Num. 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words [plainly set down.] and first to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture, so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sense of it, I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted word of God, which as I shall shew num. 20. cannot be known by Scripture. This we have taken away before so far as it concerns the present dispute: and we are like to meet with it again, it seems; and no sober Christian before he had proved an infallible Propounder of every truth to be believed, would have raised this scruple. But intellectus currit cum praxi, as the Romanist said, religion must be accommodated for their use. To this more upon the place.
It cannot be known, at least by those who can truely swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers, for example, to discover in it any Divine light shewing it to be true Scripture, more than they discover in the books of Judith and Tobit, shewing them to be true Scripture.
Ans. My Adversary here was very bold, to bring into equall compare the books of Judith and Tobit with the book of Numbers, one book of the Pentateuch, as to the Autopisty thereof. But the Jews who say that every letter of Scripture makes a mountain of sense, could see more in the book of Numbers than in those Apocryphal books. Therefore if we would resolve the acceptance of one and the refusall of the other into a reason of both, and ask why the Jew acknowledged the book of Numbers, not the other, we must find that the acceptance of the one and the disacceptance of the other cannot fall into the account of the Jewish Church its authority; because the question will rebound why the Jewish Church did authorize one and not the other. And therefore my Adversary gets nothing by this objection: for the Church cannot be the reason of the approbation of the one and the preterition of the other; because this difference made by the Church must be determined by a judicious act upon good cause. For do they dream that the Church hath an arbitrary power to receive one book, and to expunge another out of the Canon? Did they not excercise in it a judgement of discretion? Now he that discernes sees betwixt two, and sees cause why one should be taken the other left. Every elective act casts the ballance upon more weight. And therefore must we not take the recension of books canonicall from the power of the Church. And then again secondly, this availes not the Roman Church; because, if the discerning of books canonicall did autocratorically depend upon the Church its declaration, yet as it is noted, not upon a particular Church, [...] the universall Church for time and place. [...] the books of Tobit and Judith are [...] [Page 686] numbred as Canonicall amongst the rest by the Canon of the Apostles, as Caranza sets them out. And therefore, they saw nothing in them for their reception, and yet did in others. And if it belongs to the Church authoritatively to declare what books are Canonicall; yet cannot the Church have authority to declare more than the Apostles constituted; if they take those Canons to be Canons of the Apostles: for otherwise they must challenge a power to the Church not only of declaring what is Canonicall, but also of making it such; which is more than their great Doctors dare affirm. And if they will still plead those books Canonicall, let them answer it to St. Jerom, and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and to the rest, whom they think not to have differed from the Church, and yet have differed from them in this. But those who will swear no difference, we may say, are not willing to see it.
Secondly, they must infallibly shew that this very verse in which I find this point is not thrust in amongst other true parts of Scripture, or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this verse, and this they must know infallibly.
Ans. Again I must say, that we are upon the supposall of Scripture; and therefore this should not be called into question, which is the subject, but this for more tediousnesse must be brought in upon all occasions, or none. But for the uncorruptednes of the text, if they will not believe me, let them believe Bellarmin, as before, who denies any substantiall corruption: but then again, we are as sure as they, for we have for it, all the authority the Church hath, if it be infallible, we have it. Again, the Scripture is corrupted, or not? If [Page 687] so, then by the Roman Church or by some other. Not by the Roman Church, they will say: then by some other is it corrupted? If by any other, then first, how well have they been keepers of Canonicall truth? and how then shall we trust them? Secondly, if corrupted, then how do they know that those texts which are produced for them are not corrupted? If by the Church they know them not to be corrupted, this is the question, which is to be proved, and therefore cannot yet prove it. For as they say we cannot know the Scripture to be infallible by the Scripture: so neither can we know infallibly the Church to be infallible by the Church. Though it were infallible, yet this must be also known infallibly, according to my Adversaries argument. Indeed; if the word of God did leave witnesse to its infallibility, then we are satisfied: but, if the texts of Scripture be corrupted, how shall I be sure whether those they make use of be not corrupted? Therefore had they best for ever close their mouths against any corruption of Scripture; untill they can sufficiently prove that the authority of the Church is principium primo primum in Divinity. For the testimony of the Church cannot exceed, of it self, its genus. It can make no more than an high opinion; which comes short of, and is too low for infallible assurance. But then moreover, this objection is retorted upon them. How can we be infallibly assured, that in the Decrees and Canons of Council there should be no corruption, that one thing is not thrust in, or somewhat left out; since we know that there was a falsification of the Nicene Council, as before? Since they have corrupted passages of the Fathers, as before? Since some words of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were changed after the vote, [Page 689] as appear in the History? So then in this respect, as in others, we may conclude, they have no reason to accuse our way of uncertaintie: for we may be sure of this, that no way is so full of uncertainties as theirs. If the Scripture be true, they may be a Church; if false, they may be Heathens. What he says. Thirdly, after all this, &c. hath in it no such difficultie, as they imagin; for the words themselves (incorrupted) do shew their own sense, as being for the things necessary, spoken in a plain and common acception. And also their Decrees and Canons, as before, are to be sure, more obnoxious to diversitie of sense, because they were framed, at least some of them, for such a capacitie. Neither; if some things be expressed figuratively, doth any such perplexity arise; because the figurative expression doth not oppose the literall sense so much as it doth sometimes illustrate it. And this kind of speech as to Sacraments, in regard of the relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified, is indeed naturall and proper. Though the manner of speech be not proper simply; yet quoad hoc, as to Sacraments, it is proper. And my Adversary might have taken notice that St. Austin hath noted, as before, that things darkly set down in one place, are to be compared with other places where they are delivered more clearly.
And therefore that which follows about the ambiguity in what sense we must take the words, if we go by Scripture only, might very well have been 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 [Page 689] 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 [Page 690] 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, [Page 691] 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 [Page 693] 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 [Page 694] 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 [Page 695] 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) [Page 696] 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 God needed not to have indited by his Spirit any more of Scripture than only to lead us infallibly to the Church. Go to the City of Rome, and there it will be told us what must be done, in order to life everlasting. Christ might have laid aside the care of his Church; & might have devolved that to his Vicar. If we would say any thing to such a reasoning, we might say, first, he should have shewed us as fair a warrant for going to the City of Rome, as St. Paul had to go to the City. Secondly, he was sent into the City to know what was to be done; not known: for St. Paul denies to have had his Doctrine from man. Gal. 1.11, 12. Thirdly, this direction he was to have from Ananias, was rather in order to his Function than to his salvation. Fourthly, Ananias was extroardinarily inspired and indued with a power of Miracles for the restitution of his sight. But is the Pope thus? Can he give the Holy Ghost, as Ananias did; Indeed he may ordain; [Page 697] but can he give the Holy Ghost as Ananias did? At least, can he give sight? he can sooner take it away. If we being blind should take the guidance of such a Prophet, he would lead us into Samaria, and not set bread before us.
Indeed Pope Anacletus (according to Carranza) tels us in the end of his first Epistle, that the Apostles did establish this by the Command of our Lord and Savior, that greater and more difficult questions should be referred to the Apostolick sea, upon which Christ did build his universall Church (universam Ecclesiam) when he said tu es Petrus, &c. But when these Epistles are proved genuine; and then binding in his own cause, and when the Pope (who hath the same power) shall have determined the difficult question (which Carranza puts off) betwixt St. Jerom and others, whether Anacletus was predecessor to Clement; and when it shall be made good that Christ gave to St. Peter universall power over the universall Church, and not onely power over every Church, as to the rest of the Apostles (as it was distinguished in the Trent Council) and when they shall have answered St. Cyprian, who says the Church was founded, not super Petrum, but super Petram, voce Domini; in the 8. Ep. of the 1. b. then we may be in greater necessity to say more to this instance
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 Pastors ond Doctors, which God gave us (as the [Page 698] Scripture saith) that we should not be children wawavering and carried about with the wind of false Doctrine with circumvention of error, We have put all in for weight: we shall answer now distinctly. First, as to the mountain; we must know what mountain this is upon which the City of the Church was built. Whether the mount Gerezzin, or whether is mount Eball, how shall we know? And which are the Samaritans and which the Hierosolymitans, how shall we discern? We must yet wander upon the Mountains to know which mountain is the right. Each will claim the Priviledge of a living Oracle. Therefore if we were to take our resolves of all necessary points from the Church, we were yet to seek which is the true Church. And so the prime necessary would be uncertain, namely, which should be our infallible Propounder and Resolver of all necessary points. How shall we resolve this capitall and cardinall Controversie which is the right Church, the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches? Yea, the question is yet to be agitated and determined infallibly whether there is to be any such, it is not yet proved, but my Adversary here seems to suppose it. Well; give it, not grant it in the thesis, that there is such a Church. How shall it be made beyond all question, that this or this is the Church for the Hypothesis? Whether Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Allexandria, or Constantinople, or Rome is the City of that Church how shall we be ascertained infallibly? Must the City be built upon a hill in the letter? Then indeed there might be some discovery: and yet more Cities are so built, and therefore no certainty. And Rome hath too many hills to be a topicall argument that it is the seat of Christ: seven hills are rather topicall [Page 699] for Antichrist, as in the revelation. Secondly, if the Church be as fast to a place as the Heathen gods to their Temples, must the Church by vertue of the place always have the same priviledges in the zenith? So then if the Roman Church was so faithfull, as that for a time, they did flow to it for direction in doubtfull cases; must it always be as the Oracular Virgin? Will Cassander believe it that Cassandra was always so clear in her Oracles? What says Lycophron?
And thirdly, may we not as well take Gods direction, to go to the Scripture? Is not the word of God an Oracle? Let him speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4.11. Were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the Oracles of God, Rom. 3.2.? To them were committed the Oracles of God. Have we not a generall command, to the Law and to the Testimony? If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, Es. 8.20. There is light in the Law and the Testimony always: but there is not always light in them that would direct without or beside them. But the word they will say is not a living Oracle, But the word is an Oracle, and it is a living word, as before in the Hebrews. And the living God speaks to us in this written Oracle. And therefore untill we see in this written Oracle, that we have and are bound to a living Oracle, my Adversary says nothing. Thirdly, we deny, that his living Oracle supposed speaks so distinctly; that no doubt can remain of the true sense. This is sufficiently declared before in the Ambiguous [Page 700] decrees of the Council of Trent. So that indeed their living Oracle speaks after the old sort of the Heathen Oracles, as Loxias did, so as to preserve truth in one sense or other. Each party thought that the Oracle spake for him. As he to Ʋlysses—Aut erit aut non they are within one of a true prophecy, yea, these Roman Oracles have a true sense in them, but we know not which. Well then also; as for necessary points we say fourthly, as before, that we have no need of a living Oracle, because the Scripture speaks so plainly and so distinctly, that no doubt can justly remain of the true sense. And what needs more, as to salvation? Yea 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 [Page 701] 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; [Page 702] 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 [Page 703] 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 [Page 704] 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 [Page 705] 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 [Page 706] 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 [Page 707] 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 [Page 708] 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 [Page 709] 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 [Page 710] 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 [Page 712] 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 say, that we do not give so much scope to such poor creatures as ignorant men are. They have but their rational liberty to find the way of Salvation in the Scripture, unto which it was appointed, in things doubtfull, we say they should consult with learned men. We do not invest them with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interiour submission to the Church. They take their own freedom and right to see reason why they should submit to the Church, either as clearing the sense, or proving its infallibility. They are bound to see good reason why they differ from the Church; but they are not simply bound to believe upon whatsoever reason the Church gives or none. Neither doe we say, that he may stand out in his judgement against the Interpretations of whole Generall Councils; not stand out in an heady opposition, but yet may say, Salvo meliori judicio, that he must see how, what they define be correspondent to Scripture, in points of belief. Secondly, how shall poor ignorant creatures know what severall Generall Councils have agreed in, since some have differed from others, as hath been seen? They must know by infallibility that the Councils have defined this; and then that they have defined it infallibly. And so they put poor ignorant men upon greater difficulties. And if it be said that the ignorant men should believe the Church, that such a point is defined by [Page 713] the Councils: it is answered, no: we are to believe, according to my Adversary, the Church onely as it is infallible; and that is in Councils confirmed by the Pope. Thirdly, if the Church be the way for poor ignorant creatures, because of the difficulty (pretended) of Scripture; yet as to learned men, it seems it is not necessary that it should be the way to them, because to them, being so learned, the Scripture is not so difficult: and therefore upon the matter, we may conclude, that it is more reasonable, that ignorant men should goe the way which learned men should goe in, than that learned men should go the way which fools and ignorant men go in.
So then that which my Adversary says after, immediately, needs not be traduced, And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister. Any Minister of the Gospell, say you (but) I must not say any Generall Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happinesse. This, and more of this kind he hath with some undue reflexion upon his Adversary with an Ironie; but if all be weighed, and the reflexion not weighed, all will come to not much. For, first, I never gave him occasion to think that I preferred the judgement of a single Minister before the judgement of a generall Council. But that which I said, if he would have taken notice of it, doth infer a great deal of respect to the faculty of a generall Council. For if I say that a single Minister may competently inform us of so much as is necessary; then much more a generall Council. And this is implyed in the words of him that doth give a due respect to Councils. Secondly, he might also have remembred that this use [Page 714] of a Minister of the Gospel was spoken upon occasion of the text, or may be grounded thereupon, that the Scriptures were able to make wise unto salvation; therefore upon the place it is to be restrained to things necessary to salvation, which doe not need so judicious a debate of a Generall Council; because there is no such difficulty in the sense of them. If I say that my Adversary could have told us, that the authority of the Church is in the Pope and a Council, do I prefer my Adversary before a Pope and a Council, or a Council and a Pope; (for it is a mighty question which is superior, since they have no mind to be ruled by the Council of Constance?) And if I say, my Adversary could have satisfied such a scruple about the number of Orders, do I say that my Adversary could have assoyled all doubts in Theology as well as a generall Council? I did not speak of a Minister exclusively to a Council in their judgement and authority; but exclusively rather to a Council in the necessity thereof. And this sets the accent upon the Council, ex abundanti. Therefore he doth not drive the compare ad idem: for I spoke of the ability of a Minister as to things necessary, which are sufficiently plain of themselves: he brings me in speaking of a Minister, as to things of question which are not necessary: and this therefore is not logically done; for comparation must be in the same kind. Now surely a Minister of the Gospel may as well inform us as to things necessary which are sufficiently plain, as a Generall Council in things of Controversie, which are not necessary to be believed on either part. For suppose the judgement of the Church were not divided from the word of God, but we take the word from the Church, as Stapleton says in his Epistle [Page 715] dedicatory of his Doctrinall principles (and yet herein he seems to beg the question, whether the Scripture was intended onely to bear that sense which the Church gives of it) yet as to things sufficiently plain, there is no need of consulting the judgement of the Church; because they are such, then, as they will say, that the definitions of a Councill are so plain, that any Priest of theirs may instruct the people in the rignt sense: so the Scriptures are so plainly delivered as to things necessary, that any Minister of the Gospell may make a man wise unto salvation by them. And we may well say that the Scriptures were inspired for this purpose.
And therefore have I yielded him what he desired; yet it being so ingenuous, I shall also rehearse it, Do but allow me this to the Church, that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people to their happinesse, and we will not contend with you, whether this competent direction shall be called an infallible direction or not.
Ans. I could be content to stand to such an issue, and to compromise the dispute unto such terms. For we can freely allow unto him all this, even pendente lite. And we have formerly allowed as much: therefore have they either no mind to accept of our respect to the Church; or my Adversary of his own accord is coming to move moderation, that which he says here hath three importments: first, an authority and faculty of the Church; which we have granted. Secondly, that this authority, in the exercise of its faculty is directive through the Scriptures. Thirdly, that this direction to the people is competent to their happiness. Only let it be provided, that the Church its direction of the people by the Scriptures doth not [Page 716] derogate from the peoples use of the Scripture; thus we can afford all this: for this is no way contradictory to our proposition, that the Scripture doth contain plainly all things necessary to salvation: or not this also, that a Minister of the Gospell may competently inform the people in the necessaries to salvation. And if a Minister can do it, surely the Church. But the stresse of the discourse lies in this, whether what the Church can doe may not sufficiently be done without the Church: And then secondly, if not without the Church, whether it may not be done without the Church its infallibility. Now to this last my Adversary speaks thus, that he stands not upon this, whether this competent direction should be called an infallible direction or not. No? doth he not? Then he seemeth to yield that which he hath so much contended for, the infallibilitie of the Church; that that is not necessary. He hath formerly urged the infallibility of the Church to ground faith; now he either grants, that we may be saved without faith; or, that faith may be grounded without infallibility: which indeed in my opinion doth yield the cause. But then also they will give us leave to note that the cause betwixt the Romanist and us, as to verbum non Scriptum, is also yielded hereby: for if he will sit down with this postulate, that the Church may competently direct us to happinesse through the Scriptures, then the word not written is secluded from a competent direction to salvation. For the word not written is absolutely contradistinguished to Scriptures. And therefore I see no reason we should goe further in this work. which is not so hard, as tedious.
But that he calls us back with an Epanorthosis, Though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happinesse. Well, will they stand to this? Where shall we have them? If it can, then as before. If it cannot upon their second thoughts; then we say, absolute loquendo, we grant it; thus, that the Church not proposing any infallible direction cannot competently direct us; and therefore untill they prove the Church infallible in their traditions infallible too: or as to the interpreting of Scripture, they have no cause by their own argument to obtrude so often the authority of the Church; because it is no competent direction to happiness, unlesse it be infallible, as they now think. But take the Church as proposing Scripture, which we have hitherto made plain sufficiently as to things necessary; so, though the Church be not infallible in its own direction, yet being considered, as bringing Scripture which is infallible, it may competently direct unto happinesse. And so these great magnifiers of the Church, upon due account, have left us in the field to defend the Church when they have left it. We can make use of its competent direction, with the Scripture, which is certain and infallible. They cannot make use of the Church without infallibility. So then, as the Catholick Moderator says of the reformed religion, that it cannot be blamed in the point of justification, since it lays hold upon that which can certainly save us, namely, the righteousnesse of Christ: so also to be sure, here we are on the surer hand, because we make use of that which is certainly infallible, the Scripture; and also of that which gives us some competent direction, the Church; specially taking the Church universally for place and time. It is no [Page 718] question that the present Church cannot end the present controversies.
Now because, by the way, I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors, you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative.
Ans. This is well put in [by the way I did say] he spake it more than once; and it appeared also to be spoken provisionally, that there might be some refuge for the Church, if it should be convicted of some error; yet not damnative. And surely it were better for them to lie close under the buckler of this distinction unlesse they had better arguments to prove universall infallibility. But since, it may be, Mr. Knot's inconveniences of that distinction have been found prevalent, and so it is quitted.
He expounds himself thus, When I said these words I did onely take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church, that it cannot err in damnative matters.
Ans. This but one degree from a [...]. He says he meant it as we. If he meant it as we, how doth he conclude against us? We hold it distinctively, upon the case of the whole Catholick Church; though a particular Church may err in points damnative. So then he, meaning it as we, leaves the way plain to inferr that he held that the Church might err in points not damnative. If he did take it as we, we are agreed: and then by Mr. Knot's argument infallibility is extinguished. He used it formerly in way of distinction, and specificatively or not. If not, then the use of it formerly is none: if so, then he is lost. And they may very easily perswade themselves that we can allow unto them this priviledge of the Church, [Page 719] that it hath a main advantage over any Minister, or private Interpreter. This we can afford unto them without absolute infallibility of the Church. If they will be contented with such a priviledge to the Church as no Minister or private Interpreter can have, they need not exceed the distinction of the Church's not erring in damnatives, specifically taken. For a private Minister or Interpreter may erre in damnatives. Yea, also this exemption from errors damnative (in this sense) gives a demonstrative reason why we should not follow our own interpretations, without apparent cause, because the Church (universall) cannot err in damnatives, therefore we should prefer that, when we see not plain cause to the contrary: and because it may err in other things, therefore cannot we absolutely yield the Church obedience of faith for its own sake. And our differences from the Church in interpretations are not therefore damnative simply because we differ from the Church, but if we contemn the Church which hath authority and more faculty, and if we wrest hard texts, as some men did in St. Paul's Epistles to their own perdition, as St. Peter saith. Interpretations may be flatly contrary and not damnative. till the Church be proved without possibility of error, to be without possibility of error: let them then hold the former distinction untill they can make good these two points: first, that the Church cannot err at all: the second, that all error is damnative. These are two hard propositions; and therefore, if that which is most hard is most easily broken, as the rule is in the Trent History, they should do well to break them. When the Church shall shew her Commission for her infallibility, she may [...] Commission for our obedience intuiti [...].
Num. 9.Here he begins, I will presse again your text and give a second answer. Namely, the second Ep. to Tim. 3.16. So then now we shall contend [...]. He says we render the word for correction; so your Bible reads it. And why doth he note this? Because it is right? Will he correct the Magnificate? This is ad verbum to the Text [...]; Yea, he cannot find fault with our translation in this without condemnation of the Rhemish: for so they, to correct.
From hence he says, You should conclude thus, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. But all Doctrine given by inspiration from God containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation; Therefore all Scripture containeth plainly all things necessary to salvation.
Ans. I am easily brought to St. Basil's rule, [...], to teach without envy, to learn without shame. But I need not learn from my Adversary how to order my discourse in this particular. The forenamed text, which I used in my second rejoinder, was produced patly against his assertion, that, If God had not left us the infallible direction of his Church, he had not well provided for the salvation of men. To this I opposed the text in the 15, and 16. v. that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation: And by consequent, God hath well provided for salvation of men in generall. Then I urged the particulars, in which it is able to make us wise unto salvation, in the 16. ver. And now, because I did not conclude punctually against the terms he hath in this paper, (and yet, nemo temetur divinare) he tells me, that I and ours have a notable talent in not concluding contradictorily. As he said in Tacitus, Ʋtinam tu tam fortiter feries. [Page 721] To the businesse then, we say, first, that my Adversary did, or might know, that in a discourse every Syllogism, or proof, or answer, doth not formally, and in terminis conclude against the main question. It is sufficient if it concludes against the last instance: for if that be rightly made, the virtue thereof will rebound ultimately to the principal question. And secondly, as to his Syllogism, which he thinks concludes absurdly upon our opinion, we say it is unanswerable, because it hath neither mode nor figure. He had better have put it into an Enthymem; or a full Syllogism thus: Whatsoever is inspired by God contains plainly all things necessary to salvation. All Scripture is inspired by God, therefore all Scripture. Now he had the wit not to put it thus, because we should, so, easily have denied the major, as it is to be taken in the note of universality, [whatsoever] distributively; yea, also and because whatsoever so is inspired doth not contain any thing necessary to salvation: for every thing in Scripture doth not contain any necessary point. And therefore like a Sophister he wraps it up in an obscure form; yea, none, that it might not be discovered. Thirdly, if All in the propositions be taken collectively or complexively, so we own the matter of the propositions, and the Conclusion hath nothing in it but sound Doctrine without his consequences of teaching submission and obedience to the Church, and by her all things necessary to salvation. And fourthly, he should discreetly have taken all Scripture complexively: for if it were to be understood distributively, then, if every part of Scripture were profitable to all those ends, what would become of their additions of verbum non scriptum? If every part could [Page 722] make the man of God perfect, what use of the merchandize of traditions, as of necessity to salvation? And yet fifthly, it is like he would have swallowed his own discourse for the Church thus, All definitions of the Church are inspired by God. All Doctrine of the Church inspired by God contains all things necessary to salvation; therefore all definitions of the Church contain all things necessary to salvation. This would have pleased him well, since he says the Scripture teacheth all things necessary to salvation, eo ipso, by this one article, because it teacheth us submission to the Church and by her all things necessary to salvation. Therefore sixthly, he mistakes me simply, or worse, if he thought that I meant to conclude contradictorily by every particular unto which the Scripture is profitable. He commits herein a fallacie of division, making that to be concluded severally which is to be concluded jointly. And seventhly, we will now join issue with our Adversary upon the text, and first, upon the 15. ver. thus, That which is able to make us wise unto salvation contains plainly all things necessary to salvation: but the holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. Therefore the Scripture contains plainly all things necessary to salvation. And if there be exceptions made as to the major, that Timothy was not an ordinary man, and therefore though they might have that effect upon Timothy, yet not upon every one; we say as before, that it follows ex abundanti. If there were enough to make him wise, then a majori, others; because he, as a Minister, needed more direction, as my adversary affirm'd with Mr. Cressy. And I hope they will not say, that they were able to make him wise unto salvation, because he had learned them from his youth; [Page 723] for then if they would learn them from their youth they might make them also wise unto salvation: and therefore they should also learn them from their youth, as the saying of the Jews was, a boy of five yeares old is to be applyed to the Bible. Again, a fortiori, if the old Testament was able to make him wise unto salvation, then surely the old and the new together: but the old was able to make him wise unto salvation; the new not being yet for a great part written, as the Rhemists note. And when they can find as much reason for the addition of their word not-written to the new Testament, as there was for the addition of the new Testament to the old, then let them say that this text doth not exclude Traditions. If they did say, it did not exclude Traditive interpretations, it would be more reasonable; because the new is added to illustrate and declare the old: but it excludes traditions of new matter; because the new adds no new matter to the old. And yet again, as to the manner of delivery of things necessary in Scripture; if the old Testament, which was more obscure, was yet able to make Timothy wise (as to point of knowledge) unto salvation: then certainly in the new Testament is there sufficiencie of plainnesse, because the new is the old revealed, as St. Paul speaks, 2. Ep. to the Cor. 3.18. But we all with open face beholding as in a glasse, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same Image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord.
And now we will put into the argument all the ends unto which the Scripture is profitable. That which is profitable to all those ends spoken of in the 16. ver. to Doctrine, in things to be known; [Page 724] to redargution of errors; to correction of manners; to instruction, in Righteousnes, that the man of God might be perfect, furnished for every good work, doth sufficiently provide all unto salvation, because Timothy, as before; and also with sufficient plainnesse, since the old Testament could do it before the new was consigned: but the Scripture taken in complexo doth so. Therefore this text is sufficiently full and clear against them.
And his argument out of this text against me, wherein he says he hath a contradictory conclusion against me, we will now hear: this it is. That which in this text is said onely to be profitable for these ends, is not thereby said to be sufficient to these ends; and yet much lesse sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone: but the Scripture in this text is said onely to be profitable to these ends here expressed: Ergo.
Ans. The Answer unto this of his may maintains the major of my last Syllogism. For thus Estius and my Adversary distinguish upon the major, that the Scripture may be profitable and not necessary for these ends; and so in effect, the Rhemists upon the text, that the reading of the Holy Scripture is a great defence and help of the faithfull, especially of a Bishop. And this is the ground of his Argument. We answer therefore, first; if he means his major thus, that what is not said in terms to be so, is not said so by consequence neither, his minor is not true. And if he mean it otherwise, it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench; for we can acknowledge his Conclusion without prejudice to our cause: for though it be not said so in terms, yet by equivalence, [Page 725] and interpretative it is. Secondly, to the minor we say, though it be only said to be profitable: yet since it is not said that it is onely profitable, it doth not exclude sufficiency: that which affirms so much simply doth not simply deny more: for then we could no way reconcile divers historicall passages of the Evangelists. But that it doth include sufficiency, Bellarmin and my Adversary do deny; Bellarmin to Chemnitius; my Adversary to me. Yet Bellarmin stands not so much against the term, as if it could not be understood sufficient; but contends that the Scripture is not sufficient alone: as meat, though it be profitable to nutrition, yet it is not sufficient alone. For if naturall heat be wanting or any other Instrument of the body necessary to nutrition, it will not nourish, in his fourth B. de verbo Dei non scripto, cap. 10. But what is this to the purpose? For we doe not maintain the Scripture to be sufficient to salvation, alone; for there must be faith and repentance and obedience. And therefore St. Paul adds upon the place, through faith that is in Christ Jesus; but we say it is sufficient in suo genere, as to direction of us: this satisfies our cause. If this be confessed, we have done. As meat is sufficient as to the matter which should nourish: so the word of God is sufficient, as to the matter of things necessary to be known; yea, for our comfort too, as Isid. Clarius upon the text: and therefore he says when St. Paul had used many consolations, he useth here the greatest. For surely it is the most strong consolation to have the Scripture sent from Heaven, quae et tantis in tenebris lumen praeferat, et gravissima quaeque efficiat ut fiant levia. And these comforts (he says) he did seasonably give him when he was to tell him of the sad [Page 726] news of his departure. And as for the word there, [...], if we would take aim of the sense by the Syriack (since the Greek intimates the Hebrew in the new Testament, and the Syriack is called the Hebrew in the new Testament) it seems to be so profitable as is sufficient; because the word for [profitable] in the Syriack is taken from a word which signifies to abound and exceed. Thirdly, although all that is profitable is not sufficient (though all that is sufficient is profitable) yet that which is profitable ut sic, as to perfection, seems very sufficient. That which helps him to perfection helps him sufficiently: quoad hoc, as to point of knowledge. And if it extends not to sufficencie in the expression: the reason may be, because other things also are profitable practically. And therefore is sufficient to end all Controversies necessary to salvation by it self alone. Because there need not be any controversies necessary to salvation: yea, rather necessary it is that there should be no Controversies about things necessary to salvation: because possibility of error in those things is so dangerous. And therefore he supposeth that which is not to be supposed. For the man of God may be perfect by Scripture; ready furnished to every good work. The man of God; to wit, the Minister. So St. Paul of Timothy according to proportion to the Jewish Title, but thou man of God flie these things. And this we strengthen with St. Crysostom's note upon the text, [...] not simply partaking, but with accuratenesse furnished: and again before, [...] Instead of me thou hast the Scriptures (not traditions) if you will learn any thing from thence you may, so that the Fathers comment imports the [Page 727] Scripture to be sufficient, as to learning. If any thing else could be pretended as equally profitable, then either St. Paul's teaching him: but he was to depart; and in stead of him he was to have the Scriptures; or traditions: but he saith not, thou hast the word not written; but thou hast the Scriptures; and that the man of God by the Scripture may be with accuratenesse furnished. Therefore untill they can find any thing sufficient without Scripture, or any thing necessarily conducing to the sufficiency of Scripture, we rest contented with our cause upon account of this text; wherein also, as usually, by a [...], lesse is said: more is understood. If the Pontificians had such a text for their cause; this profitable text would have been made sufficient.
As for the third answer, that St. Paul doth not so much as speak of the whole Canon of Scripture; whence he is most weakly cited to prove that the whole Canon containeth clearly all things necessary to salvation; We may not say that this is weakly urged. For the argument proceeds a fortiori, as before. If part of the Canon; if the old Testament be sufficient, then the whole much more. And if Traditions were necessary to be added to the old Testament, as happily they will say, why did God give us the new Testament? And to be even with them again; when they speak of the Roman Church, we might also say, this is weakly urged, to prove the opinion of the whole Church; because they do not speak of the whole Church.
Again, when this is proved, it is manifest that part of the whole Canon is lost. How then know you the same necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of [Page 728] Scripture which are perished, and so are come not to be extant in writing?
Ans. The former is, I suppose proved more than they desire. And to this we answer, first, if it be manifest that some part of Scripture is perished, he might have told us, which: otherwise it seems it is not manifest. No certain and manifest knowledge of the generall but by some particulars. Secondly, If any part be lost, it is either of the old, or of the new Testament: if of the old, the new hath the same matter, as to sufficiency, with clearnesse. If of the new; the old was able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. And my Adversary might have known, that not onely Mr. Chillingworth affirms that there is enough in one Gospel precisely necessary to salvation: but also that their Bellarmin in the former B. and Ch. says that all the utilities of Scripture which here are rehearsed, are found in the second Ep. of St. John. If any book then be lost, (which we are not certain of, nor they neither, because, for ought we know, not defined by the Church) yet by nis opinion (namely, Bellarmins) that which remains may be profitable, (yea, sufficient) for those uses without an infallible Judge. And again, if any book of either Testament or any of both be lost, this will redound to the prejudice of the Roman; because they account that they onely are the Church, and that the Church is the keeper of Divine truth; then they have not faithfully preserved the truth of God; and therefore, if they were infallible in what they doe propose how should we trust them, that what is delivered as truth, they would keep; since through their negligence they have let some book or books of Scripture perish? Quis [Page 729] 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.
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 [Page 731] 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, Ʋt 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 [Page 732] may be need of a Judge externall, as to peace; but for this there is no need of a Judge infallible. If any thing would content them but a spirituall Monarchy, this might: yea, neither, it may be, if such a Monarchy were necessary, were this infallibility necessary; because Ministeriall authority doth not essentially include such an infallibility.
But he goes on, and useth an argument against me. The word of God according to your own Doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies before the whole Canon of Scripture was compleatly finished: but St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished. Therefore St. Paul said this of the word of God before the word of God was of it self alone sufficient to decide all Controversies. Therefore then it had been false to say the word of God had been sufficient to this end. Therefore St. Paul did not then say so.
Ans. Besides what I said before concerning the use which I made of this text; and to say nothing of what is here supposed, that St. Paul was the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews; I answer to the major, that that part of Scripture was then sufficient, before the whole Canon was compleatly finished, in our sense to decide all necessary Controversies as well as the old Testament was sufficient to make Timothy wise unto salvation. and for those uses which are there spoken of in that text to Timothy: therefore he mistakes us if he thinks we hold that that part which was then written, was not sufficient. And yet more might be added by God though not by man; for the Canon then did not restrain God but man. Therefore we answer also to the assumption, that if he [Page 733] takes compleatly finished, simply; then indeed St. Paul said it before the Canon was compleatly finished; but if he takes the words so as that part which was written was not sufficient in our sense, we deny it. For then God had not sufficiently provided for the Church of those times; neither had the Scripture been able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. So the terms in the former sense do not conclude: in the latter they are concluding, but not true. So this specious argument is at an end without its end. Onely, we will now make use of the argument against him, turning the mouth of the Canon, as we may speak, and it is thus; St. Paul said this of the Scripture before the Canon was compleatly finished; therefore now much rather after it is thus compleatly finished, is it sufficient. Or more fully thus, The word of God according to his Doctrine is not sufficient after the Canon is compleatly finished: St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon was compleatly finished: therefore his Doctrine is contradictory to St. Pauls, ex abundanti, for St. Paul says the word was sufficient before the Canon was compleated: and he says it is not sufficient after it is compleated.
Again those words speak not of the word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth.
Ans. This is a plain cavill, or a slander: we license not any blunting of the edge of Scripture by any mis-interpretations. We do not deny the use of Scripture, as the Romanists do to the people. Neither is it fit for them to complain of blunting the edge, who take away the Sword of the Spirit. We onely allow the people to be perswaded in their own mind concerning the sense of [Page 734] Scripture: and if the Pontifician authority or arguments be able, ex vi fua, to perswade them, that what sense they give is authentick, let them be perswaded. But it is very usuall for them to quarrell first who are most guilty, that so they may least be discovered. But who blunt Scripture so much as they who say the Scripture is like a nose of wax, which may be turned any way? Let him that is without sin in this kind cast the first stone at us. How they have adulterated Scripture is known to all the world.
But of the word of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church, in whose hands, hands guided by the Holy Ghost, this word of God is managed for the decision of Controversies, that it is sharper than any two edged Sword.
Ans. How often must we be forced to tell them that we exclude not the use of the Church in a due Representative towards composing of differences: and also that the Church is not now infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost. And therefore that their decision is not the last resolutive of faith: and that there is no need of any such infallible Judge for necessary Controversies, since there is no necessity of Controversies about things necessary. And also that, if there were such a Judge infallible, we must know it, and who it is, infallibly. And also then hereby are excluded the [...] of traditions: for if the Scripture interpreted by the Church be to decide all Controversies, then what need to have recourse to the word not written, as to that which equally binds in things of faith? And so then they destroy themselves. And therefore whereas they say frequently that Scripture alone doth not decide all necessary Controversies, [Page 735] we can easily distinguish, that alone hath respect either to the Church or to traditions; as it opposeth traditions, so alone; and it doth exclude them: and as it doth respect the Church, so, though it doth not exclude the use of a Judge, yet it doth exclude the necessity of a Judge infalble.
His other lines unto the eleventh num. might have been spared. Si non verum prius nec posterius. And they have also been answered.
And here wisely he joins to the examination of my former texts,Num. 11. another text which I produce against him in answer to the fourteenth number, that he might handsomely decline an answer to that, which, if he would have dealt punctually, I should have been answered in its place, but we follow him at the running leap. The text is, that of Christ, Search the Scriptures. St. John. 5.39.
His exception is this, To prove this to be understood in the Imperative mood evidently is impossible, therefore, evidently they do not contain a Command, This is the sum of that discourse.
Ans. First, evident proof they had not best urge: for then what will become of all their faith and all their discourse; which doth not amount to so much as probability? Secondly, if it be more probable to be understood in the Imperative, it is sufficient to weaken their cause; since I am to be considered, as proposing the text by way of a respondent, not as an opponent. Therefore if I name a text which is but probable against them, it is enough for me against them, specially in the cause of infallibility; for a probable contradiction undoes infallibility. Thirdly, it is in the Syriack in the Imperative mood: and this interpretation, [Page 736] if any other should weigh with us. Yea, also, so do the Rhemish Translators read it, in the Imperative. Are they also decived? then how shall we be ascertained of the sense of Scripture by Rhemish Interpreters? So Ferus also upon the place expounds it to be a direction to the Jews of searching the Scriptures out of a greedinesse to know the truth. And again, upon the latter words, They are they which bear witnesse of me, he says, that Christ cites no place, but speaks in generall, tam ut ad quaerendum incitet, both that he might incite them to seek. And so also Stapleton reads it in his Principia Doctrinalia, in the Imperative. And also besides, not so often do we find a verb of the Indicative mood to begin a sentence. But then also fourthly, the reason concludes it a duty: and the duty concludes a command. It concludes a duty thus, that which bears witnesse of Christ, being in doubt we are bound to search: and they bear witnesse of Christ, and were then in doubt; therefore for that our Saviour should not affirm it but upon their opinion (in that he saith for in them ye think to have eternall life) is no materiall scruple, because the verb [...] as in other Authors, so in Scripture is used by way of elegancie: and then our Saviour says himself that they bear witnesse of him, and therefore we have in them eternall life Doctrinally. And so St. Austin in his 45. serm. de verbis Domini, says, as expounding the place, queritis me et non invenietis: quare? quia non scrutamini Scripturas quae testimonium perhibent de me, yee seek me but shall not find me: why? because you do not search the Scriptures, which bear witnesse of me. Therefore may we conclude ( [...]) that it is to be taken in the Imperative.
And therefore his exception, that it follows not, because they testifie clearly this one point whereof he spake, therefore the Scriptures testifie cleerly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation, that exception falls down before my argument, as Dagon before the Ark; because it is not only grounded upon this, that the Scriptures bear witnesse of him, but also in that [you think to have in them eternall life.] And this proposition, if there were need, we might prove by what was said before, that which is able to make us wise unto salvation hath in it eternall life: the Scriptures (of the old Testament) were able to make wise unto salvation, therefore, they have in them eternall life; and by consequent, they contain all things necessary to salvation. And therefore though this excluded not the hearing of John or Christs Miracles, as he would inferr, as upon duty; yet it excludes them as upon simple necessity to salvation. Otherwise those who dyed before Christ and John could not have been saved. The force of his ratiocination comes to as much as this, as if because one had a great estate, he could not live of lesse; or as if, because he can live of lesse he ought not to follow his calling, whereby he may get more. This is not the question, whether we ought to hear whatsoever God says: for this we affirm; but this is the question, whether it be said because it is necessary, or necessary to be heard because it was said: the former we deny. The necessity was not antecedent to the diction: but hearing hath it self to the diction, as a necessary consequent. So this text is yet good against him.
Onely he urgeth me with St. Cyrill's opinion of the mood, and also Beza's. I had thought he [Page 738] would have made no mention any more of any Father of the Church, because he says, I do not allow infallibility to their testimony. It seems their authority must yet be good against us, though not for us.
To Beza's judgement we will oppose, quoad hominem, the interpretation of the Rhemists and Ferus, as before. To St. Cyrill's authority we say, we can confront it with St. Chrysostom's: and yet we do not build upon the mood; for the reason binds us. Yet because he seems to have his mind turned in better affection to the Fathers, it will be reasonable to set down St. Crysostom's words hereupon: [...], he sends them to the Scriptures. And again also, [...]; And we therefore, when we are to fight with Hereticks and are armed against them, are strengthned from henee: namely, from the Scriptures; for so it follows in him as a reason, for all Scripture is given by inspiration, &c.
Num. 12. Your fourth text is, You err not knowing the Scriptures. And from hence he demands a Contradictory Conclusion: shall it be this? Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture? Or rather this, Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture? For this is the far stronger consequence.
Ans. Indeed he seemed to love rather to baffle his Adversary than to answer him. For here again he dislocates my answer, that where it was proper it might not be answered, and where it is not formally contradictory, it may not seem opposite. Doth this become men that would lead us the right way by truth to happinesse?
The citation of this text comes in to give him satisfaction unto his argument, that if Christ had intended this book for our sole Judge in all Controversies, he would undoubtedly in some part of this book have told us so clearly; this importing so exceedingly, as it doth, and yet he hath not done so. To this I said, we answer, Christ hath disertly declared his will to oblige us unto Scripture in that he bindeth us to search the Scriptures; in that he saith, ye err not knowing the Scriptures; and also adding the other text to Timothy: All Scripture is given by inspiration; and also 2. Ep. Pet. 1.19. We have a more sure word of Prophecy: thus I said: and also allowed him the use of externall Judges without necessity of infallibility; and also I retorted his argument, If Christ had intended the Church should have been the infallible Judge, it importing so exceedingly, he would have told us so clearly, which he hath not done, &c. Now if all my texts be able to give a full account of our being obliged to Scripture in point of faith, and not to an infallible Judge externall, it is enough for me, and my purpose, to which I used them: but he cunningly draws that text from the proper use, and shews it here not to be fit for a contradiction to that which formally is another question than that to which it was applyed, but let these tricks go.
I will now take the texts together, and from thence conclude contradictorily to the present question, Whether all things necessary to salvation be plainly set down in Scripture, thus;
If we be referred to Scripture in point of faith and not to an infallible Judge, then the Scripture doth plainly set down things necessary to salvation. But we are referred to Scripture (as [Page 740] appears by those texts) and not to an infallible Judge, (for ought appears clear by my Adversary) therefore the Scripture plainly sets down all things necessary to salvation, the consequence is plain as denying the reason of an infallible Judge; which should be, because we are not sufficiently furnished in Scripture unto things of faith: then if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith: as there is no need of tradition to supply our faith in the matter; so neither is there an infallible Judge necessary, to supply the want of the Scriptures manner of expression. For all the Controversie betwixt us, in point of Scripture, must be reduced to these two: either that all which is to be believed, is not contained in Scripture: and this brings in tradition with them; or, that which is in Scripture is not plainly enough set down; and this brings in the question of the infallible Judge. So then, if we be referred to Scripture in point of faith, we need no infallible Church, either for object or infallible resolution of faith. Now as for the minor, that we are referred to Scripture, those texts prove sufficiently, and he cannot deny it: that we are referred to an infallible Judge, he hath not yet proved: and I deny it.
Yea, what will they say, if the last text onely proves an Elench; Thus. If the cause of error be not knowing the Scriptures, then the Scriptures doe plainly contain all things necessary: but the cause of erring assigned here by Christ, St. Mark 12.24.28. is the not knowing of the Scriptures. The minor is Scripture, the consequence also would be able to maintain it self, but that they think that we cannot draw a consequent universall from an antecedent particular: for the text there is applyed to a particular point of the Resurrection. [Page 741] To this we answer, first, simply, we cannot argue an universall conclusion from particular premisses, because the genus contains, potentially, more than one species: but they know that the resurrection is a main point and comprehensive of more: so that Aquinas might well conclude him to be an Heretick that denied the immortallity of the Soul, because [...] he denied the Resurrection. It includes also the Resurrection of Christ, 1. Ep. Cor. 15.13. If there be no Resurrection from the dead, then Christ is not risen. So then, if by the Scripture we may be right in the knowledge of our Resurrection, and consequently in the knowledge of Christs Resurrection, which supposeth his death, that his Incarnation, his Incarnation God the Father, (as he speaks, if ye had known me ye had known my Father also (then it doth plainly enough set down that which supposeth as much as was necessary for those in the time of the Law: because they had enough to bring them into the hope of the Resurrection: unlesse we say with the Socinians, that they had no hope of the Resurrection. And secondly, if the Resurrection was sufficiently declared in the old Testament, it being so fundamentall a point, what reason can be given why other points which are also necessary should not likewise be plainly delivered? And thirdly, if that and other points were competently enough revealed in the old Testament, that the cause of erring was the not knowing of the Scriptures (not the not knowing of the Church) then surely the new Testament, which is the old revealed, doth set down that and other points with sufficient plainnesse unto salvation. And this is sufficient to our purpose.
As for the consequence then from the former Text, which he thinks more probable, that because they did err, therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture, I answer, first, he argues ab esse ad probabile, which is not rationall: ab esse ad posse, is good: But we cannot argue, that because such a thing is come to passe, that therefore it was probable it should: for then because Adam did sin, we must say it was probable he should sin; and so he had not been created with a posse peccare and a posse non peccare in equall freedom: for probability must arise from an inclination. And if they say that the case is different from the fall of man: and therefore depravation by the fall doth non incline the power of erring to an actuall error, as the power of sinning unto an actuall sin; we answer, first, that they had not best enlarge the corruption of nature by the fall, lest they bring the Trent Council as to this point in danger of error: and secondly, we say that if they exclude not the grace of God from taking direction by the Church, so neither do we exclude the grace of God from taking direction by the Scripture: and if they say men cannot err, if with grace, or by it, they take the guidance of the Church: then surely with grace, or by grace, it may be as probable not to err through the knowledge of the Scripture; and therefore his consequence of more probability that the Scriptures are not plain because they did err, is vain. Secondly, if those who erred were but a part and sect of the Jews, and those that did not err might be the greater number, (if not the soberer,) then it will follow by his own argument, that this was plainly enough set down in Scripture. Thirdly, he supposeth that which is not to [Page 743] be supposed, if he thinks that we hold things so plainly delivered in Scripture, as that we cannot err whether we will keep the way or not: for Scripture doth directly work upon the understanding, grace upon the will. It is therefore sufficient to us to say, that things necessary are so clearly proposed in Scripture, as that if we be dilligent to know and follow Scripture, we need no infallibility of the Church. Fourthly, he might have been advised that this discourse of his will return upon him to the prejudice of their Church: for it should seem then, as hath been often noted, things are not so plainly defined by their Church, since there are such differences amongst them; even in grand points. Fifthly, we distinguish betwixt knowledge in habitu, and knowledge in actu; their habituall knowledge of the Resurrection in Scripture might be good, and it might be plainly enough exhibited: but they were defective in the actuall knowledge, in not considering those principles of Scripture which might have concluded it, according as our Saviour doth upon the place. And surely, as the not considering is the moral cause of most of our evil actions (according to that of the Philosopher [...], and therefore also saith David, I have considered my ways and turned my feet into thy Testimonies) so also is the not considering Scripture, the cause of all, or most, of our errors: at least the cause of the danger in the errors we have: and if they would study the Scripture affectionately they could not err as they do. The Principles of Scripture are sufficient unto habituall knowledge; and yet error may come by want of actuall knowledge: either negatively, by not applying them; or worse, by misapplying them, they take such opinions first as are of use [Page 744] to them, then will draw Scripture to them, as is observed: but they should apply their opinion to Scripture; not Scripture to their opinion. Sixthly, and lastly, he did not consider how near he came to Blasphemy by comming so near to a contradiction of Christ: for Christ says to them Ye err not knowing the Scriptures; and his consequence says by consequence, that they might err though they did know the text, because it doth not plainly set down the Resurrection, whereby he makes either our Saviour to affirm that they could not know the Scripture which our Saviour plainly supposeth; or else that the cause of not erring is not to know the Scriptures, as to that point: which how he will answer at that great day, I know not.
And so his Syllogism comes to nothing, or worse than nothing. For if all things had been plainly set down, they should not have erred: but they erred: therefore all things are not plainly set down. His major is false. If he takes should not have erred, ex parte officii, it is true; but not to his purpose: if he takes it ex parte event us, it is to his purpose, but not true. It is not false, that they might not have erred: but that they could not err, it is false: A posse ad non posse non non valet. Means are not always used; or not as they should be. We know our duty plainly in many things, yet we do not do it. This argument is good against him; men have erred about the sense of the Trent Definitions, as hath been said; therefore all things are not plainly set down by the Church: but this Argument is not good against us, because we do not allow the form or rule of the argumentation.
His other answer is as uneffectuall, that they might err in the knowledge of the Scriptures, because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretation, which is the most ready way to err, specially when men oppose the publick interpretation of the Church.
Ans. And doth this conclude contradictorily to this proposition, that they might not err if they attended to Scripture? Secondly, they might err if they attended to the Church; because, (for ought is yet confirmed) the Church may err: and therefore the surer way is to attend to Scripture, which they confesse is infallible. Thirdly, if he speaks of opposing the publick interpretation of the whole Church, we allow more reverence to the universall Church than to theirs. Fourthly, is it necessary that every one who cannot submit intuitively to all the definitions of the Church in points of question, should oppose the publick interpretation of the whole Church in plain points of faith? Fifthly, Maledict a glossa quae corrumpit textum, This glosse corrupts the text: for there is here a limitation of Christs words (which else where he accuseth us of) without any colour from the words of the Text. The Text disertly represents the cause of erring in this matter of the resurrection to be the not knowing of the Scriptures, without any mention of the Church: He will not afford it right, unlesse we take in also obedience to the interpretation of the Church; and his Church too (for otherwise he is [...]) which was not then surely invested with the priviledge of infallibility; which was not invested upon them, as some of their most learned affirm, til after the resurrection of Christ. And therefore if this were true, it were not pertinent. Sixthly, upon this whole matter, it comes to this, that [Page 746] it is with them better to believe the Church without the Scripture even in plain points, than the Scripture without the Church: for otherwise he comes not up to the state of our question. And how good this Divinity is, let those learned ones of their Church judge, who will thus distinguish of the Scripture, that it is necessary but not sufficient: which also in my opinion is by them intended on the behalf of the Church indeed; but not to bring in a new necessity of an infallible Judge in matters of Scripture expressed, but to bring in necessity of Traditions in matters of Faith not expressed.
Num. 13. Your fifth text is 2. Pet. 1.19. We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto you do well, that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, untill the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts.
His exceptions against the validitie of this text are two. One, that all things necessary to salvation are not there set down, when S. Peter spake those words, because the Canon was not finished. This we have fully taken away before. The other is thus, how will you prove that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, because one thing is plainly set down?
Ans. To this first, take that which was said before about the concluding all points necessary to be plainly set down because that of the Resurrection is so, with the reason thereof: and the reason is good here also, because he seems to confesse that that one point of Jesus's being the Son of God and the Messias, might clearly be found in Scripture. This me thinks then we have gained, that one point is clearly set down in Scripture. And this it may be conceived he might grant me, because I could draw [Page 747] no consequence from thence against him, for so he insists, how will you infer ergo all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture? We make use of it thus. If this point be plainly set down in Scripture, then other points also necessarily concerning his being the Messiah must also clearly be set down: so then here is a wheel in a wheel, yea, many inclusively in one: and those also clear: but verum prius; as it seems by his own confession. Secondly, if I should serve them with a quare impedit; why do they not as well admit other points to be clearly set down in Scripture? what will they say? surely they will say that this point is plainly set down, because it is so necessary. Well then, we reply. If there be degrees of necessaries, then we may be saved in any degree of necessaries. Or, if this be set down onely as necessary; why not all necessaries? For the rule is good, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: If that clearly set down as necessary, then all things necessary are clearly set down. The same reason is the principle of universality; surely with God; who doth all things in number, weight and measure. For although that Axiom, Idem quae idem semper facit idem, doth not always follow as in finite Agents, because they may be defective in their power, and there may be want of disposition in the matter they work upon; but it cannot be said that God wanted ability to set down other points as plainly: and there is no repugnance ex natura rei, that other points should be as plainly set down as that; therefore if God in his wisedom and goodnesse, caused by his Spirit that verity to be clearly delivered for our salvation; how can we believe that he did not also direct the Pen-men of the Spirit of God to deliver all other points necessary to salvation with necessary plainnesse? [Page 748] Again thirdly, if the word of the Prophets was a more firme word than the Testimomonies of the Apostles (as Estius upon the place) as to the Jewes for the faith in the Messiah, then where we have that and the writings of the Apostles in the new, why should we not account this a more sure word than the word of the Church in this point, or any other contained in Scripture? Why may not we as likely doubt of the Church, specially a particular Church, as well as the Jews might doubt of the Apostles? And is not the Doctrine of the old and new Testament more sure than the Doctrine of the Church? To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this, it is because there is no light in them; as the Prophet speaks: then the Scripture is the rule of their Doctrine, and therefore more sure: that which gives credit to others must be more credible. Yea, and untill they prove that something new in substance was added to the new Testament above what was contained in the old, that text availes also for Christians, against any thing not written. Neither can the Romanist say, that that word of Prophecy shines in a dark place by the hand of man in the Church: for it is spoken of the word as written: and the Prophets who then wrote the word were dead. If the Prophets had been then living, it had been reasonable for the Jews to have taken their direction from their mouth, as it might be reasonable for us to take the word of God from the mouth of the Apostles, were they now living: but the Prophets are dead, and the Apostles are dead; by whom we know God spake: but that God speaks now by the Church as he did by them, we are yet to deny untill it be better proved; or these texts better answered. But we have one more.
Your sixth and last text is Acts the 17. where it is said of the Beroeans, Num. 14. they received the word with all readinesse of mind, and searched the Scripture daily whether those things were so.
Against the proceedings of this Text he brings severall Pleas: some common to former Texts, as at the latter end of the number: these are answered already: those that are new we shall here examine. And first he calls for one evident clear syllable which saith the Beroeans did search the Scripture before they believed St. Paul. Nay, is it not first said, they received the word with all readinesse of mind?
Ans. First he says that which is to be proved, that those words, they received the word with all readinesse of mind, do inferr rather that they did believe St. Paul before they did search the Scriptures: For though St. Paul was infallible in his Doctrine, and therefore might be believed, and ought, yet it doth not appear that they were perswaded of him: and therefore it is not said they recieved St. Paul with all readinesse of mind, but they received the word: and they might receive it with all chearfulnesse as good, though they did search it, whether true. Secondly, they might receive it with all readinesse upon appearance of probability, although they did not believe it, until by search they found it agreeable to the Scriptures. Yea, somewhat may be received without probability, and with all readinesse of mind too, as an Adversaries paper: And that they did not believe it untill they had compared it with the writings of the Apostles appears more probable by the following words, that they did daily search the Scriptures, if these things were so: their search was an sit; [...]. [Page 750] If they did believe, why did they still search and daily search? Doe we search for that which infallibly we believe? Then where is certainty, which Mr. Knot makes necessary to faith? But he himself will ingenuously confesse as much as seems requisite for our cause, in these words, upon those motives which St. Paul proposed to them before they searched the Scriptures, and being by those motives and Instructions well enlightned to understand the Scriptures, they for their further comfort and confirmation, searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether they testified the same point, and this one point of our Saviours comming being clearly in Scripture, perhaps St. Paul might bid them search in such and such texts for it.
These words we must take great notice of: what motives they were he doth not expresse; but such it seems, as upon which many thousands did recieve it (whose proceedings you can never prove lesse laudable than the Beroeans) But this his parenthesis does [...]. He might have left it out better. For why then are these Beroeans commended? If there was not in them somewhat of excellent ingenuity, why are they commended for this, that they received the word with all chearfulnesse, searching the Scriptures daily? Doth not this belong also to their commendation, that they searched the Scriptures daily? Nay, it may be, further, if we may have leave to be critical, their receiving of the word with all chearfulnesse was concurrent with the searching of the Scriptures daily: and so the participle [ [...]] is to be taken per modum medii; whereby they came to embrace the word: the use of Participles is not, it may be, infrequent in this sense. However, it is not [Page 751] comely for him, when the Scripture doth give a reputation and honor to these Beroeans, to equalize many thousands to them.
But we must a little more reflect upon his words. Motives these Beroeans had proposed by St. Paul before they searched the Scriptures. But what motives? That is not expressed by St. Paul, nor indeed that they had any: Well, but we give it, that they had motives. And if the authority of the Church had been one of those motives, my Adversary would not have omitted it. And yet also we can grant motives before the resolution of faith: So that those Beroeans might have motives, and yet not believe before the searching of the Scriptures.
But this how loath is he to come to, that they did search the Scriptures, as in order to believing: Therefore he doth substitute other ends of their searching of the Scriptures; namely. for their comfort and confirmation. What? For their comfort and confirmation, and not for their faith? But if the searhing of the Scriptures be of use to our comfort and confirmation, then also to our faith: but not to beget it, it may be. No? As in naturalls so in spirituals, we may be said to be nourished by that by which we consist, Therefore it is said, Rom 10.17. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And if it be said that it comes by the word of God spoken: It is answered, the word of God spoken is to be measured now by the word of God written, unlesse we had as good reason to believe those that now speak in the Church, as the Jews had to believe the Prophets, or the first Christians the Apostles. But secondly, if the searching of the Scriptures was of use for the comfort [Page 752] and confirmation of them, then this brings more honor upon the Scriptures, because this is more to be comforted and confirmed by them: for comfort at least, respects the application of the Gospell to us; and if the searching of the Scripture be of use hereunto, as in the way of a particular faith: then surely to a generall faith much more. Thirdly, therefore if he means by comfort particular assurance, then he turns Protestant in this opinion: if not, he will be little differing from faith. But fourthly, these Beroeans were here commended for searching the Scriptures, whether to comfort and confirmation, or to faith: and therefore surely we cannot be discommended hereafter for allowing the use of the Bible to the people.
But this he occurrs to: Neither hence is it made evident, that the old Testament was thrust into every mans hand of the Beroeans, but that they deputed their chief Doctors to make this search, and that for this point onely: namely, our Saviours comming, which, he even now said, is clearly in Scripture: Well, as we have noted, we have here the main and denominative point of Christians, by his confession, clearly in Scripture: but the old Testament was not thrust into the hands of every man of the Beroeans, no, not to search them as to this one point: Oh, how tender they are here in this matter! Si non caste tamen caute. But was it put into the hands of any of the Beroeans? if so, why not into the hands of all? If not, shall the Beroeans in the text suppose onely for the Doctors, and for none of the People? But some it may be would have abused the Scripture: and would none of the Doctors? no, will he say, not in a clear point: [Page 753] but would the Doctors then in a controverted point? If so, how should we be ruled by them? Yea, neither the people would have abused the Scriptures in a clear point, by his own Argument: because they erred, therefore it is not plainly set down. So then if this point, about our Saviors coming, be plainly in Scripture, as he cannot but acknowledge; it seems then the people could not err in it. But then again secondly, it is not like to be meant of the Doctors, because it being a plain point in Scripture, there was no need for them to search the Scriptures daily: Therefore most certainly it is meant of the people: for the Doctors also are not wont to be spoken of in a common notion of the nation. Thirdly, it is to be understood of these Beroeas in opposition to the Thessalonians, as appears by the text, these were more noble (or more ingenuous) than those of Thessalonica: now these in Thessalonica were not of the Doctors: for it is meant of the Synagogue there, as appears by compare of the first verse of the ch. and the fifth with the rest. And so also those who are spoken of in Beroea, were also of the Synagogue of the Jews there, as appears by the tenth verse: now the Synagogue was not a Congregation of Doctors, but of the people, with a Master. And so it was a rule with the Jew, ten make a people: and where there is a people, there is to be a Synagogue: and where a Synagogue, there a Master. So then this being spoken of them of the Synagogue per so, it is most like to be understood, de communi, of the people. And fourthly, if it were to be understood of the Doctors, I hope the people should have believed [Page 754] them upon their own word, without the Doctors searching the Scriptures daily. For if the Doctors be not to be believed without their searching of the Scriptures daily, then, for ought I see, we have done; and the Controversie betwixt us is at an end: because it is to no purpose, that their searching of the Scriptures should be a condition of the peoples belief, unlesse also the people be allowed to give their belief conditionately to the search: and how can this be done by them, unlesse they compare what is said by the Doctors with the Scriptures. For how shall we believe the Doctors upon their bare word that they have searched the Scriptures? so then, in effect, upon this account, the main principle and last resolutive of the peoples faith must be the Doctors meer word: and why then should they discourse fallibly, and conclude infallibly, as Stapleton would have it?
To conclude then the debate of this text; we may have, I suppose, clearly, these two corollaries from it. First, that it is not onely lawfull, but commendable, whatsoever the Church says, to search the Scriptures whether those things be so: for the Church cannot have greater authority upon us than St. Paul: (no, nor so much neither, till they prove it better) and yet these Beroeans were commended for it. And if in a point clearly set down in Scripture, (as this was by his own acknowledgement) then in other points much rather, because (by his own argument also) in such the Doctors may be more mistaken: Yea, because also, according to our principles, positive faith in such points is not so necessary to salvation untill we see it plainly [Page 755] proposed. Yea also, when a point controverted appears plain, the disbelief is not damnative by the nature of the verity; but because it destroys Gods veracity; which is the prime tenure of all truth. Secondly, we have also this Corollary, that faith comes by searching of the Scriptures: for so it follows (which my Adversary had no mind to take notice of) in the very next verse, the twelfth, many of them therefore believed. Therefore; namely, upon searching of the Scriptures: so that they did not believe blindely, and then searched the Scriptures; but searched the Scriptures first, and then rationally, upon principles of Scripture, believed. And these two propositions are sufficient to unhinge the Pope and all his Cardinalls, and all their Religion, as differing.
So that now the texts (whereunto he would wisely have answered out of due place) being vindicated from his batteries, and standing against him in their full strength and force, we may now, after this reinforcement of them, make shorter worke: having already given him more than he brings.
And therefore as for his Argument in this Par.Num. 15. That this is not plainly set down in Scripture, [that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture] and therefore not all things, is answered by our deniall of the Antecedent; and the proof of the contrary. For the moment of 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, [Page 756] 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 [Page 757] 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 [Page 758] 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 [Page 759] err? Thirdly, if he confesse that there is not a clear text which sheweth this priviledge of, and our duty to the Church, then the disputation is at an end: for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers, for causes best known to himself. And if he sayes, we must be judged by the Church; it is the question. Fourthly, therefore are we in this agreed, which is the main point of the question; namely, that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down, that the Church is to decide, with infallible authority, all our Controversies. For, if it were plainly set down, we also should be bound to believe it, as being plainly set downe, though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation, simply because it is plainly delivered. All necessaries are plainly set down, according to our opinion: but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation, ex natura principii. And then fifthly, if he doubts of this point, as to be plainly set down in Scripture, then his principles are less capable of certainty than ours: for he hath no ground certain of his faith, upon the account of the Church; because, if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture, she could not, by her owne authority, contradistinctly to Scripture, prove that she is [...] and yet neither hath the Church, or their Church, (for ought I have read) in any of their Councils, determined it selfe by Scripture, or otherwise, infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies. Nay, neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton, if I be not mistaken, assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent; therefore my Adversary in this walks alone.
Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear, that the Church is to decide all our Controversies, than that the Scripture by it self alone is to decide them.
Ans. This comes not home to the point. For first, we goe not upon degrees of claritude, but upon infallibility. Can they tell us how many degrees of claritude will make infallibility? Secondly, All our Controversies are not so much as all imaginable Controversies: there are other Controversies imaginable besides ours. Thirdly, he supposeth that of us which is not true of us, that we affirm the Scripture to decide our Controversies formally: which we say not: we say again, that for things necessary to be believed there is no need of Controversie, because they are plainly delivered: for other Controversies there is no need, as to salvation, that they should be decided, because they are not necessarily to be believed. And also for some of their opinions, they are in effect decided, namely, in a negative manner, because they are not mentioned in Scripture: and therefore percutit Dei gladius, as the Father speaks; the sword of God strikes them off. Fourthly, he is brought to a pinch: he would fain have the authority of the Scripture for the infallible decision or the Church: yet because the point is not so clear as to amount to our infallibility of their infallibility, he puts it upon degrees of claritude.
But if it comes to degrees of claritude betwixt the Scripture for the Church, or the Scripture for it self, who shall compare and judge? the Church? this is the question, and it is a partie. And persons are partiall▪ the Law not. And would not they [Page 761] have men determine for the Church? Yes verily: and he thinks with good reason, then he allows them, as is observed by Mr. Chillingworth, a judgement of private discretion for the Church out of Scripture, but not for the Scripture out of Scripture. Fifthly, he differs from his own party in this, for they think it demonstrable out of Scripture, that the Church is with infallible authority to decide all Controversies. And how else can [the Roman] in their Trent Confession, be added to the Catholick and Apostolick Church? And how did they by their Authority determine that the Latine Bible, which came out first by Sextus Quintus, afterwards corrected by Clement the eighth, (though the former by them infallible) should be the Judge and Decider of all Controversies? So that, by the way, although the Scripture in the originall be not a Decider of Controversies, yet in Latine it may.
His texts of more claritude for the Church come in afterwards, as he says, n. 58, &c.
To passe by here that which is not materiall,Num. 16. and also that which is spoken of here to be managed by him hereafter in other numbers of this ch. (which might give us an Alarum, when they come nearer us.) He says here, he might have added to other points necessary not plainly decided by Scripture, that great point, whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who are baptized by Hereticks. And this we will not here passe by unsaluted, because we give reverence to St. Austins testimony [Page 762] produced by him upon the point. We therefore answer, but with some expostulation, why doth this come in here? was the latter written before the former? There is some mystery in it: but we passe it. We must answer therefore, first, that he mistakes the question which he is upon: it is not this, whether the Scripture doth plainly decide whether such a thing be necessary or not, but whether it doth decide plainly that which is necessary. Now here he laies it down as a question undecided by Scripture, Whether it be necessary to rebaptize those who are baptized by Hereticks. To determin a thing which is necessary, and to determine whether the thing be necessary, are surely two things; the former respects the thing as in it self which part is true: the latter respects the thing in modo, and in order to the end, either of obedience or salvation. Therefore secondly, we distinguish of [necessary,] it hath relation either to duty, or to salvation: the former is the necessity of the precept: the latter of the mean. The former (if supposed) doth not infer the necessity of the knowledge of this point: because we may be saved without the knowledge of every thing which is commanded by God, by generall Repentance. Otherwise no man could be saved: for no man living knows every thing which is commanded, therefore invincible ignorance must excuse actuall repentance. Now the second necessity doth infer a neeessity of knowledge; because, without the knowledge of necessary means, we cannot obtain our end. He is therefore to prove it necessary to salvation to know which part of the Contradiction is right, to rebaptize or not; which he cannot do, because [Page 763] the practice on either part is not necessary by necessity of mean. And the practice on either part is not necessary by necessity of mean; because then either those Churches which differed from St. Cyprian, or those that held with him, were in extream peril of damnation; which I think they will not say. Wherefore, if either part be necessary to be believed, the necessity is not ex vi materiae, but ex vi proponendi; upon the clearnesse of the proposing it. Now that which is necessary to be believed in the latter kind, doth not belong to our question: for the question is of those things which are to be believed necessarily in order to salvation, not necessarily to be believed in order to the proposall; but this clear proposall is not necessary, because the practice on either part is not necessary to salvation; and therefore this is no necessary question. And this distinction is sufficient to destroy at least the most of all his instances of this kind. And thirdly, my Adversary needed not, as to himself, to have made this a question, by reason of the practice of their Church: for they account us Hereticks; and yet when we come over to them, they do not rebaptize us. And if they say, it is now determined by the Church in the negative; we answer, it is not yet determined by the Church whether it was necessary to be determined by the Church in order to salvation: for then it was necessary to salvation not to be rebaptized; and it was necessary to salvation to know it: the former puts St. Cyprian in danger for the evil practice: the latter puts him in danger for want of necessary knowledge. And therefore the former part of St. Austin's testimony [Page 764] hereunto is not appositly produced: for the question now is not whether it be openly or evidently read in Scripture; because we confesse it is not: but the question is of the necessity of it to be known. Let then the moment of this discourse be resolved into form, thus: This is necessary to be known, on which part the truth stands: this is not known by Scripture; therefore somewhat not known by Scripture is necesry to be known; we answer, first, we deny the syllogism, because it is not an Elench, a contradictory syllogism: for it should conclude something necessary to salvation which is not known in Scripture: And if this be put into the major proposition, that it is necessary to salvation to be known, we utterly deny it untill it be well proved; which we think will never be.
And to that which follows of St. Austin's testimony in the nineteenth ch. (not the twenty second) de Ʋnit. Ecclesiae, we, consequently, can easily make answer, even by saying as he, that, If there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony that he should be consulted in this question, we would make no doubt to perform that he should say, lest we should seem not to gainsay him so much as to gainsay Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended, now Christ beareth witnesse to his Church: therefore. But what then? What is this to our purpose? For first, this informs us what should be done, but not upon what necessity, whether to salvation or not. In things of question we deny not all due respect to the Church: but we are upon things necessary to salvation; and amongst such, this point is out of [Page 765] question no question. But secondly, those that should be consulted with, should be believed in proportion to Scripture; should they not? yes, surely because Christ hath given testimony to his Church, in Scripture; and if we are to take the testimony of the Church from Scripture, then are we to give credence to what is said in analogie to Scripture: Now though it be not openly and evidently read in Scripture, as he says: yet there may be some seeds as it were, in Scripture, of it, whereupon the Conclusion might rise. And therefore where Scripture hath the principle, we give belief to the Conclusion in respect thereunto. Yea, the prime and formall reason of believing the Church must come from Scripture, by which there in that book, St. Austin doth prove the Catholick Church: so that if the Church be credible by the Scripture, then the Scripture is more credible. But thirdly, this is said by the Father of the Catholick Church, not of a part of it: and therefore they cannot conclude from hence to the Roman Church. For it being understood of the whole Church, as such; a part as a part hath no part in it, but as it agrees to the whole. Neither is it said of the Catholick Church for place then, but also the Catholick for time: and yet if for the Catholick then, we cannot equally draw it to the Catholick for place now; for the Catholick morally was more credible then than now. And fourthly, as he hath excepted against the concluding unto all points from the Scriptures concluding one: so we, ad hominem, deny that he can conclude from the Church unto all points, because St. Austin useth it for one point against [Page 766] the Donatists. And as he argued from the Catholick against the Donatists a perverse part which would have salvation onely within their circuit in Africa: so may we argue from the Catholick Church against the Roman, which will have all subject to their Communion, or damnation.
And then also may we limit that which followes, Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe, who by his testimony commends the Church. This, respecting things of Discipline against Schisme, may be good: but what is this to universal and absolute assent in point of faith? And it concernes the Catholick Church, as before; not the Romane: or, if it did concern the Church of Rome then; yet dato, non concesso: it doth not at all avail to the Church of Rome now.
As for his distinction of using this Testimony, Not for the authority of S. Austin, (with whom I am so little satisfied) but for the convincing reason. We answer, that this is but a flourish, yet wisely made, lest he should be as well engaged to answer the testimonies of the Fathers against them: I say then, that we give more respect to the Fathers than indeed they do when they differ from them: and we give as much as the Fathers desire for themselves. And why have they themselves then left some practices of the Church: as unction with Baptism; standing up in prayer betwixt Easter and Whitsontide; Infant Communion, and others? But I shall conclude this Number with S. Austin's Reason, mutatis mutandis, Whosoever refuseth to follow the Doctrine of Scripture in things necessary, resisteth our Saviour [Page 767] himselfe, who by his testimony commends, and commands to us the Scripture. Let him think of this who is an Impugner of the sufficiency of Scripture.
To pass by his suppositions of his proofe,Num. 17. which are already nulled by me: he doth here take notice of my charging him with a contradiction in adjecto, for saying, we should submit to the infallible Judge, whatsoever Reasons we have to the contrary: But this he doth not ingenuously deliver, as it was delivered by me; and yet, in effect, saies nothing to it, but that I do ill suppose any solid Reasons grounded in Scripture against such a Judge. And this is all he would say to make out my charge against him of a Contradiction in adjecto; leaving out those words of mine, for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary, &c.
May I not say, that this was not fair dealing? but to let this pass: if he can yet prove, or any for him, such a Judge to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, whose tongue is directed by the same Spirit who directed the Pen of those who writ the Scripture, then indeed I should suppose that which could not be: but this I deny to be proveable by all the wit of Rome; and therefore I still hold my supposition: and yet if this could be made good, I should yield my supposition; yet I could not reverse my charge against him of the contradiction in adjecto, which lies not in the supposition of Reasons out of Scripture against such a Judge; but in this, that we must submit to such a Judge, whatsoever Reasons we have out of Scripture to the contrary: For if there could be any such [Page 768] Judge proved, there could not be Reasons out of Scripture to the contrary. And Reason out of Scripture will binde beliefe against any proof. It would not onely put a demurr against proofe, but prevail against it: and if the proofe were out of Scripture, then there should be a contradiction in Scripture: for there should be reason for such a Judge, and reason against it; and so the Scripture should not be infallible: which they confess.
Num. 18.But this not right dealing with what I wrote shall not answer for the misusage of Bellarmin, that he here accuseth me of; because I said, If we are by duty to go the way of absolute obedience to the dictates of the Judge, we must then, if he says vices are vertues, say so too, as your Cardinall Bellarmin determins.
This 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 [Page 769] 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 [Page 770] 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 [Page 771] 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 [Page 772] 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 all the world also. For all differences do arise either in Doctrine or Discipline; (if we take Doctrine as extendible not onely to points of simple faith, but also to points of practice.) For then the Scripture should rule [Page 773] us in points of Doctrine: and the Church in point of Discipline, unto peace.
But his fair terms will not grow into a composition. For he argues, that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of Hereticks, thus. All Offendors against the Law will never be so much their own Condemnors as to chuse, on their own accord, a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned: therefore when we see all Offendors against God's Law in point of Heresie, chuse on their own accord to be judged by Scriptures, it is a manifest sign that they know they shall never be condemned clearly by Scripture.
Ans. This discourse in form seems an Enthymem, but in effect is a Syllogism, if we take a minor out of the consequent. To the major therefore we say, we are not here to examin what an Offendor would do to save his life, but what we should doe to save our souls. The question is of duty, which we should be judged by. Nay, secondly, the Offendor ought morally to refer himself to his right Judge notwithstanding his danger: and in heresie we offend against the fundamentall Law of God in Scripture. For though there be a respect to the Church in the common definition of heresie; yet this opposition to the Church doth not constitute heresie, but rather schism. Heresie hath in it more of the matter about which the error is. Schism hath more of the form in opposition to the Church, because it is neither in things clearly commanded, ordinarily: nor in things necessary. And so his argument from a manifest sign seems to [Page 774] be such a sign that he had no better; but besides, the minor, which is couched wisely in the Consequent or Conclusion, is also in part false: for Hereticks have also pleaded the authority of the Church for themselves, as hath been said: and by his argument, this is a manifest sign that they cannot clearly be condemned by the Church. And then again secondly, to the minor, he supposeth hereticks rationall men, because they do wisely decline, as he thinks, such a Judge as would clearly condemn them. Well then, they may desire to be judged by Scripture, not because they cannot be clearly condemned thereby; but because they know that that is the standard whereby their opinions are to be authorized and made good, and because they are to deal with those who know there is no other way of solid reviction for the matter of heresie, but by Scripture. Thirdly, the Adversaries might have known, that as they have appealed to Scripture, so also to the Scripture they have been sent by the Church: so St. Austin dealt with Maximinus: so St. Athanasius said the Nicene Fathers determined against the Arrians by Scripture, as before hath been said. If therefore they, who in his opinion should have judged them, judged them by authority of Scripture, then Scripture is the Law by which they are to be judged. And then the whole argument will be returned upon them, mutatis mutandis, thus, All Offendors against the Law of God of their own accord would not chuse such a Judge by whom they know they shall clearly be condemned; Therefore my Adversaries who are Offendors against the Law of God in Scripture, of their own accord have [Page 775] no mind to be judged by Scripture: and therefore they chuse to be judged by the Church, which they interpret to be themselves: thus, as Hereticks, of their own accord, would be their own Judges: so would our Adversaries with all their hearts; then they agree with Hereticks. And so it would pose him to find any one Heretick; as it would pose me to find how my Adversaries Church should be condemned.
And as for the false glosses and interpretations whereby he thinks Hereticks may evade; why should we again say, that notwithstanding they were dealt with by Law of Scripture, but also, so there are false glosses and interpretations of former Councils and later too; else how could some definitions be so set down as should please different parties? And why so many differences still? But is this an argument for Theologie? they may use false glosses and interpretations, therefore they are not to be judged by Scripture: as good an argument will starve him, for fear of poison in his meat.
And as for our giving of scope to these kind of glosses and Interpretations, it is not so, In maxima Libertate minima licentia. Regular permission to search the Scriptures is no giving of scope to such glosses and interpretations; then, if so, in stead of the Beroeans commendation for searching the Scriptures, we must read condemnation. For if Ministers may not give this libertie, the people ought not to take it.
Neither do I against any Council firmely believe my own particular interpretation to be true, but by consequent: because that which is so interpreted by me according to lawfull rules, I may judge to be true. And he may allow me a power of discourse upon the propositions of Councils; because he, as others, may hold Councils to be fallible in their discourse, but not in the Conclusion. And is not this very disputable? Can I be as much assured of it as that Jesus is the Christ? And may not I consent to the antient Fathers against the Fathers of Trent?Trent Hist. And did not some Divines in the Trent Council complain that some determinations crossed the mindes of the Antient Fathers?
And now, if they will consider that the Arrians upheld an opinion, which they know condemned in a lawfull Generall Council, namely, the first Nicene; and also that the Arrians knew, and that others ought to know, that nothing, in point of faith, could authentickly be urged but out of Scripture, they may think they have satisfaction enough to this Paragraph.
And may what Christ and his Apostles have expressed, for the use of the Cup in the Holy Communion, be extruded; and what the Trent Council determined for the omission not doubted of? Call they not this presumption? Was ever any before these days so presumptuous?
Num. 20.Here my Adversary would maintain a supposition of his, that they do only believe the Scriptures, not we.
Ans. This varies from the state of the present question: and therefore, when he goes from the question, we need not follow him, for the [...] with us is this, whether the Scriptures do plainly contain all things necessary to salvation: yet, as he said, Non sum piger, usque sequor. His argument is this, No body can believe this with Divine faith, who doth not ground his assent to this truth upon Divine revelation: but our Adversaries doe not ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation.
Ans. Some of our Divines have been charged with too much charitie: but we are now charged with a totall want of faith, and consequently hope too. Yet we may hope to make his charge nought, and our faith good, but we need not say any more than what hath been said, whereunto he hath said as much as comes to little: yet now he diverts hither.
We must say therefore again, that this should not be a question betwixt us, how we believe the Scriptures to be the word of God: for this is supposed betwixt us as the subject of the question. And we say, that the sense of this argumentation is to as much purpose as if, when we are at London we must go back again, because we did not go the new way. As to the Assumption then, we deny it. We do ground our assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation, Yea, moreover we return him his argument in terms, and therefore they have no Divine faith, so naturall it is for those to speak most who have a mind to cover their own defects. They cannot [Page 778] ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation, because they ground it upon the authority of the Church: for they must either have an immediate revelation that the Church is infallible; or else they must ground it upon the general sum of revealed truth; and that is the Scripture: for as for Tradition, that which is of a particular Church is of no weight, as to this businesse: and universall Tradition must go upon account of the Church: now then, if they say that they have a Revelation immediate, that the Church is infallible in proposing those books to be Canonical, they make that to be of use to them which they deny to us, who have as good reason to say, that we may as well have an immediate revelation that the Scripture is the word of God: but if they ground their faith upon some texts of Scripture which concern the Church, then they must believe the Scripture for it self. So then either they must come to us, or else indeed they have no Divine faith.
And therefore had he no cause to be offended with that I said, that the Canonical books are worthy to be believed for themselves as we assent to prime principles in the habit of Intelligence. To this he says in a parenthesis, And so is the book of Toby and Judith as well as these.
But doth he say, this [...]? and doth he not then find fault with the antient Church, who did not, as hath been shewn, give equall reverence to these, as to the books Canonical? If they be as worthy to be believed as the books Canonical, then they erred in not receiving them [Page 779] with equall belief: And if they erred, then our Adversaries are lost.
And now as for our assent to the Canonicall books in the manner of assent to prime principles, by the help of the Spirit of God; they are not like to prosper in the abuse of it. First, it is to be noted, that we are not now to deal with one that denies the Scripture to be the word of God: for to an unbeliever hereof we should use other arguments rationally to induce him to a good opinion hereof, but when we are demanded by a Christian what is it that grounds our faith of Scripture, one would think we might say, that we are resolved to a Divine faith hereof by the Spirit of God, disposing our assent to them as of themselves worthy to be believed, which is the reason of assent to prime principles. And therefore secondly, we do not say, that our assent to the Canonical books is by a naturall light, as our assent to prime principles; but that our assent is made to them by way of Intelligence, through the Spirit: the light of the Spirit, as to shew us the Scripture to be worthie of belief for it selfe, is supernaturall: but when that comes, we believe it, as we do prime principles; not by discourse, but because it is credible of it self. Faith herein bears more proportion to intelligence than to science: because we do not in faith use a reason to the act, as we do in science: And this is intimated in the common reading of that text of the Prophet, Si non crediderint, non intelligent: if they will not believe they shall not understand; so then, since faith is a [Page 780] supernaturall habit, as the School-men, the Spirit of God doth infuse it into us, as being an habit infused, as they speak: and this doth dispose us to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, as by him indited, And one would think that it is a better ground to believe it to be the word of God, because he saith so, than to believe it because the Church saith so: and it is more about, because I cannot believe it upon the account of the Church, but because God gives testimony of the Church, and why cannot we then believe God, teste seipso. So all the assent we give to them is made upon the veracity of God, which is the center in which all lines of Scripture do meet and terminate.
Therefore might he have spared that which follows, Have you brought all the infallibility of Christian Religion unto this last ground to be trampled by the Socinians?
Ans. First, I do not see what reason we have to lay the foundation of Religion so as to please the Socinian. One who maintained the Protestant cause was prejudiced by suspition of being inclined to Socinianism: and I am now found fault with for not providing for their satisfaction in our principles. Well, but secondly, I do not finde that Socinians do abhor this tenure of Scripture. And thirdly, they, to be sure, do trample upon the authority of their Church, as infallible. And therefore this is to be returned home to the Romanist.
And also upon the former grounds might he have omitted what follows from [doe you expect, unto all that you believe;] for although the object is to be believed for it self, as a prime principle; yet is there not a naturall light for it: that comes supernaturally; and therefore faith is a supernatural habit. But if they would be accounted such rationall men in the faith of Scripture, they do deserve from the Socinian a negative reverence by a positive favour to them. But again, how far is that which I have said different from the determination of Ratisbon in their fourth session, Scripturae dicuntur perfectae quoad perfectionem eredibilitatis et exactissimae veritatis; The Scriptures are said perfect, as in respect of the perfection of credibility, and most exact truth. And the perfection of credibility belongs to the first principles, which are indemonstrable. And as those principles have themselves immobiliter unto Sciences, as Aquinas: so the Scriptures have themselves unto Divinity. Here we must rest. And if every one doth not believe them to be the word of God upon this account, this doth not derogate from the credibility of the object, thus we say, that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God, is evident of its own self, needing no further proof for the requiring an infallible assent no more than the first principles, which are the object of intelligence.
And also therefore upon the premisses, that which concludes the number might have been forborn, Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitifull a case as your Adversaries could wish it.
These braving words do not hurt a solid cause, they are to be returned to the place from whence they came, who hath brought Religion to so pitifull a case as the Pontifician, who must have religion made accomodable to their pride and covetuousness? No case of Religion so pitifull as uncertainty: no such uncertainty of Religion as with them. For if they ground their Religion upon the determination of Councils, wherein onely Bishops have their vote, and the Bishop of Rome his confirmation thereof; no man can, according to their principles, be certain whether there be a true Pope, or true Bishop; as hath been said. Moreover, we can make use of intrinsecall arguments for the truth of Scripture to be the word of God, as well as they. We can make use of extrinsecall arguments better; for we make use of the authority of the whole Church, and do give it, in this point, as much reverence as is due thereunto. But therefore, till that which is here said for the setling of our faith, be disproved; and also till it be proved, that we do not make use of these arguments towards our faith of Scripture, because we do not pitch our finall resolution in them, our ground of faith and of Religion is as good and sound as theirs; yea, in respect of our own subjective faith, more. Yea, the Romanist might know, that he hath been told, that Estius doth differ from them upon this point? and says, that it is not necessary to faith to be begotten by the proposall of the Church, in the third B. of senten. 23 dist. Yea, also Stapleton in his Triplication against Whitaker saith, p. 103. Ego igitur quicquid in haec causa Spiritui sancto tribuendum est, plenissime assignavi, [Page 783] &c. ‘I have most fully assigned what is to be attributed to the Holy Ghost in this cause, asserting these two things; both that by faith infused alone, or by the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone, all faith may be begotten, when it pleaseth the Spirit of God to teach any extraordinarily immediately; and also, although ordinarily a thing is delivered by the testimony and authority of the Church, yet no faith doth efficaciously follow, without the gift of faith infused by God, or without the internall testimony of the Spirit of God.’
And again the same in the next page, to the same purpose, to clear himself of the suspition of giving no more to the Holy Ghost in this point than those who put the last reason of believing in the testimony of the Church, he says disertly, ‘Ego enim, &c. For I have denied and do deny, that the last reason of believing is to be put in the testimony of the Church; not onely upon that head, that that last proposition or resolution [I believe the Church to be governed by the Holy Ghost.] is not had without the inward gift of faith, or that he who believeth this, believeth this by a gift of faith and not by humane faith or acquisit; but especially upon that head, that without any testification of the Church or notice of the Church or of the knowledge of that proposition [That the Church is governed by the Spirit of God] by the onely Magisterie of the Spirit of God, one may believe all that is to be believed, as the Prophets and Apostles being taught by the Spirit of God alone, did believe many things, [Page 784] for from hence it follows invincibly against Durandus and others, since there can be but one formall reason of our faith, and some believe without the testimony of the Church, but none can believe without the testimony of the Spirit, that the proper and formall reason of faith is not the voice of the Church, but must be the testimony, the Doctrine, the Magistery of the Spirit of God.’ So he. And therefore there is lesse between Stapleton and me; than betwixt my Adversary and me. When all is done therefore, we must come to this of the Father, Cathedram habet in coelis qui corda docet in terris: He hath his Chair in Heaven that teacheth hearts on earth; and with the heart man believeth unto salvation. Rom 10.10.
Num. 21.Therefore in the following number he needed not to take notice of my differing from others of our own Church in this point: let them agree with their own men. Let Bannes and Stapleton agree with Durand. or if they cannot be reconciled, let them never hereafter make any difference amongst our selves a prejudice to the cause. It is then no more reproach to me to differ from others, than for some of them.
As for the three then, whom he says, I differ from, Mr. Chillingworth, Dr. Cowell, and Mr. Hooker; if they do not agree it, it is no infallible argument against me even in the opinion of those three, But also, as to the first, I say, and my Adversaries might have known, that he held not faith in the high notion of a [Page 785] Divine assent, as they do: But that a morall assurance was sufficient to it, and sufficiently influxive into necessary practice. And therefore having this opinion of faith, he conceived no such need of an infallible ground hereof, but took therefore a common principle for his motive hereof, namely, universal tradition. Secondly, if he takes not his grounds from my Adversaries, what do they get by him? For in his sixty sixth page, he says, that it is altogether as [...] to him that the Gospell of St. Mathew is the word of God, as that all that the Roman Church says is true. Yea, moreover the same p. 135. doth fairly shew that the Spirit of God may give assurance hereof, which he says indeed, is not rationall and discursive, but supernaturall and infused. An assurance it may be to himself, but not to any other: and again, p. 211. that the Doctrine it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God, Nec vox hominem sonat. And is not then in his opinion the Scripture [...]; If then he had raised faith to that height of a Divine assent, as my Adversaries do, it is very like he would have thought better of this assurance by the Spirit to be more ordinary; since universal tradition, if it hath any weight, must rest in Scripture, as it is the tradition of the universal Church, (which also he contradistinguisheth not onely to the Roman Church for place, but to the present universall Church for time) because we cannot prove the Church but by Scripture.
And as for the other two whose judgements he opposeth to my opinion, I think they may receive [Page 786] convenient satisfaction by what is said to the former: that they did not deny this assurance by the Spirit of God, but that it is not argumentative to others. And therefore as to the question about the sufficiency of Scripture, Mr. Hooker says, that this is to be supposed, that the Scriptures are the word of God. And notwithstanding he thinks this is not to be proved by it self, yet in his first book. 34. p. he speaks enough, in that he says, the Scriptures do sufficiently direct us to salvation. And he quotes for it Sotus in the margent. And if it sufficiently directs us to salvation, then must it be sufficiently clear of it self that it is the word of God: for otherwise, the principal point unto salvation must be known otherwise. And if they think to argue well, that we must have all faith from the authority of the Church, because we have the faith of the Scriptures from the Authority of the Church, we may as well conclude, that since we have sufficient direction to salvation from the Scripture, we are also sufficiently directed to this main point of faith from the Scripture, that the Scripture is the word of God. Yea more; the Scripture doth give better evidence of it self to be the word of God, than the Church can give testimony, of it self, to be infallible: because the Church as such, in religion, is a non ens without Scripture in the substance of it. But to make an end of this exception against me in varying from others; this is the common Protestant principle; or else Stapleton was decieved, who makes account that every one of us ad unum do hold the Scripture to be known per se et sua quadam luce propria. In Analsiy principionem. Therefore if the question be how we are [Page 787] privately assured ultimately that the Scripture is the word of God, we say, with Stapleton, that we are assured hereof by the testimony of the Spirit: if the question be how we prove it to others to be the word of God, we can, for extrinsecall proof, make use with Mr. Chillingworth of universal tradition.
His exception then against our private assurance of the Scripture to be the word of God, in his following words, comes to nothing: for we need not, from what we have said, say, that the assent of faith is evident, as to an object of sense: but yet the assent may be more firm and certain. The formall object of faith is inevident: yet may we more fastly hold to what we believe than to what we see, because what we see depends upon our fallible sense: but what we believe, hath an infallible ground, namely, the word of God, that this is his word. For this ultimately must settle our personall faith: or else we have no faith, of proper name which is infallibly grounded: All believe that what God says is true: but if to the question, whether God says this, God cannot bring his own testimony, there can be no authentick ground of Religion in subjecto. And those therefore who would not have died to bear witness to a thing of sense, have died to bear testimony to the Christian Religion: and also have died for it, assuredly, ex vi habitus, by the power of the habit of faith, not ex vi traditionis, by the credibility of the Church.
And as to that, which he takes [...]tice of, that I acknowledge a greater necessity of such a Church [Page 788] to declare by infallible authority which books be the true word of God, which not, than to declare any other point: I answer, that it is not very ingenuously taken here by him, what I said; for I spake by way of supposition, that it would not follow, if the Church were infallible as to propose, or tax and consign Canonical books, (as Stapleton speaks) yet that we had need of the Church infallibly to propose every other point of faith. He, it seems, took positively, what was spoken upon supposition. Every thing which is given in discourse is not granted to him: but this he refers to num. 43.
For the ending then of this Paragraph, and sufficiently for the Controversie, upon the whole matter, it remains, that the Scripture must be credible for it self, or else the Church. Not the Church, that must be known by the Scriptures, as before, therefore those texts by which the Church is proved in the truth and infallibility, must be worthy to be believed for themselves, or not: if so, then why not other parts of Scripture; and so we have our purpose? if not, then are we in a circle; and must beg the question and never be satisfied.
Num. 22.Here another argument is drawn against me from the effect negatively; which, in the kind of it, doth not conclude, A non esse ad non posse non valet. And we may as well argue, that some have this way attained faith; therefore this is the way: however, the possibility proceeds from the effect to [...], but it doth not proceed against a possibility from the deniall of it to some. Because [Page 789] Pighius and Hermannus have not found assurance this way, therefore this is not the way for finall assurance, is inconsequent. Secondly, the cause of non-assurance thus, doth not arise from the defect in Scripture, (which Stapleton says, and some others is true and holy and authentick) but God doth not give by his Spirit faith to all. All men have not faith; as the Apostle, as commonly we expound it, and though they are said to believe in the sense of the Church because they professe the Christian Religion: yet by an internall act of faith many not. Thirdly, neither are we bound to maintain this proposition of theirs, Facienti quod in se est datur gratia ex congruo; and therefore, if upon the use of means, they have not this Divine faith infused, it is no prejudice to our cause: for not onely gifts are gratiae gratis datae, but also the gratiae gratum facientes are also freely given: and therefore is their distinction, by the way, faultie. And therefore, if there be many millions (which is yet more than he could know) who can truly and sincerely protest before God, and take it upon their salvation, that they are wholly unable by the reading these books to come to an infallible assurance that this is Gods word; This inferrs nothing of moment against us, because, although we have not ordinarily the effect without the means, yet because we use the meanes therefore necessarily we shall have the effect, doth not follow, if the graces of God be free. Yea, fourthly, those millions he means are of their Church, we may suppose: and they, we may think, are instructed to find no resolution but in their own way, by the proposall of the [Page 790] Church: So that as St. Paul says, Rom. 10.3. ‘of the Jews, that they going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God:’ so also may we say of these, that they going about to establish the authority of the Church in this point, have not submitted themselves to the authority of God. Yea, fifthly and lastly, (to be even with him in kind) it is said in Eusebius, that for some time in the Church, some books were doubted of: now let me ask how came the Christians afterwards to be assured of those books to be also Canonicall? Not by the former Church; for they doubted thereof: not by the latter Church; that was impossible. How then came the Christians first to be perswaded of those books to be also authentick? If it be said by the present Church; we suppose a time before the Church then was thereof assured. Yea, if it be said, that private Christians were therein resolved by a Council, we say that some were assured of books, before doubted of, before there was any General Council: Yea, how came those of the Council (upon the supposition) to be so determined of them? It will be said by them, that they were assured by the Spirit of God; then, as Stapleton's argument is, since there is one formal reason of faith, the last resolution must be by the Spirit.
Num. 24.In the twenty fourth number he argues against me thus, that if my opinion were true, then let but an Heathen or Turk or Jew read the Gospell, he must by reading of it see it as clearly to be Gods word, as he might see the Sun by his light.
Ans. If they must be answered toties quoties, we say, they suppose that which is not to be supposed, that we say the Scripture may be seen by its own light naturally. We say not so. Supernaturall objects are not seen by natural faculty: for then what needed the testimony of their Church? The object is fair; were the faculty fit. The Spirit of God doth not relate to the object directly, but to the faculty enlightning it. [...], as Aristotle in his Metaphysicks: and much more therefore is our minde unable to look up upon that which is not only removed from sense, but also from reason: therefore is the apprehensive power raised by the Spirit of God to make a proportion betwixt the faculty and the object: and the difficulty of apprehension is more from the weaknesse of the faculty than the sublimity of the object: therefore if an Heathen or Turk or Jew were by the Spirit of God inlightned, he would by reading of the Scripture have such an eye as might discern the Scriptures to be the word of God. And also neither can any one by reading of the determinations of Councils see that they are the word of God. Hath God provided better for their clear conversion by the voice of the Church than by his written word? Doth the Turk and Jew run to the Church of Rome as naturally as the Lamb to the dam? Doth the Jew think he hath reason to recieve the Scripture from the Roman, as to the old Testament? Or doth he not think that the Roman should take the Bible from him? and therefore, in course, the Jew is said to offer it the Pope, as he goes to his Palace.
If this were true, it is impossible thousands should not be yearly converted by this means.
Ans. No, if the Roman could help it: for he would not suffer them to have the common use of the Bible, yea also may we say the same, if they could not but believe by the knowledge of the Church at first sight. Yea, surely the reason why so few of them doe believe, is not because they are not disposed to believe by reading of the Scripture, but because they are not disposed to read them.
This effect indeed he vaunts is to be performed by the Preachers of the Church: who have found the concurrence of Gods grace to the conversion of millions.
Ans. It is well that they have so good reason to magnifie preaching: and yet this action is not by their great ones so highly esteemed; and this practice I think they took from their Adversaries, who had the first fruits of this office: and therefore if it be so; the argument is available as well to them. But secondly, the conversion was not, it seems, ex vi ministerii; but by the concurrence of Gods grace: and surely the concurrence of Gods grace is sufficient to conversion by reading. But thirdly, if the Preachers of their Church (as Xavier) with the concurrence of Gods grace did convert millions, then I hope infallibility may be even in private Doctors; or else we have no need of infallibility in order to conversion.
But he supposeth that reading of the Scriptures alone did never find the concurrence of Gods grace to convert any single man (that we could hear of.)
Ans. More may be done than they know: and more may they say of their Preachers than was done. Secondly, were their Preachers Preachers of the Church objective? If so, then they had other denominations than did become them who had a mind to follow the Apostles, who rather commended Christ to the Church, than the Church to Christians. Yea; if St. Paul, 2 Cor. 4, 5. says, ‘We preach not our selves, but Jesus Christ the Lord, and our selves your servants for Jesus sake;’ how could they preach themselves or the Roman Doctors to be the Masters of their faith, and the Roman Church not onely to be the Mother, but Mistrisse of the Christian world? Thirdly, if any did believe by them, they did not believe for them, and therefore was not their authority the ground of their faith: nay, not the authority of the Roman Church; for that can have no greater authority than St. Paul had: and what said he of himself, 1 Ep. Cor. 3.5. For what is Paul, and what is Apollos, but Ministers by whom ye believed; [...]. And fourthly, is not reading of the word an ordinance of God? and therefore was the Law read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, and is there any ordinance of God with which he doth not at all concur? though he is not bound to it: yet he doth it gratiously. Yea, fiftly, was not Junius converted to the Christian faith by reading of the first Chapter of [Page 794] St. John, with the concurrence of God's grace?
N. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. In all these he prosecutes the same discourse, against the clearnesse of the Scripture to be the word of God by its own light. And all the arguments therein do, in effect, hang upon one string; which is a supposition, that we should hold this principle, of the Scripture's being the word of God, to be as clearly assented to by a natural faculty, as a principle of Science. Only in the 29. number he doth dispute against the help of the Spirit to see the Scripture to be credible for it self.
That supposition we have already taken away: and so the string being broken; all those arguments must fall, yet what in them is new and of moment I shall touch and remove.
As to the want of suffrages from the Antients for my opinion in this point, which he chargeth it with in his twenty fourth Par. I say no more than that I have said more than he had any mind to make any answer to; the reason whereof I have given before.
And as to his imagination, that if the Fathers had perswaded the Heathens to believe the Scripture by its own light, they would have scoffed at them, we have answered before, that we use not such an argument to perswade others: but this we have for our private assurance, as we cannot assent to Christian Doctrine but by the Spirit (for no man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the Spirit;) so no man can give a Divine assent to the books [Page 795] of Scripture, but by the Spirit, as Stapleton hath affirmed: therefore though we cannot argue to others the reception of these books as Canonical by that inward testimony of the Spirit, which we cannot make known to others infallibly; yet surely we may be able to prove to the Pontificians, at least, that there is such a testimony of the Spirit of God in thesi: they will not argue from the deniall of it in Hypothesi to private Christians, to the deniall of it in universali: for they say that the Church which is to commend these books to private men (if they think they are to be commended to them) is assured, that they are books Divine and Canonical, by the testimony of the Spirit: so that, upon the point, we agree for the kind of assurance, and they come to us for the last assurance: onely they will have us to have this assurance mediately, by the Church. So the whole ratio and account of a Papist is, [...], delivered by Stapleton, Dei verbum per os Ecclesiae intelligimus; both the faith of the Scripture, and faith out of the Scripture we must have it from the Church. And yet the Church Representative must have it severally from the Spirit immediately too: and so there is lesse difference. And yet there was no Council or Pope surely for the first three hundred years; in which time notwithstanding men did believe the Scriptures to be the word of God; and then no difference betwixt them and us in the perswasion of Canonical Scripture. Secondly, Dato non concesso, that there had been nothing said by the Fathers touching this point (which yet, as before, is not so) yet cannot we argue from them negatively as we doe [Page 796] from Scripture; because even the chief of their Doctors will say, that the Scripture is a rule of faith, and the principal one too, some: but so is not the consent of the Fathers with the Papists in communi, (for they will differ from them as they did in the Trent Council) and specially with my Adversary who hath, before, contradistinguished the Fathers to the authority of the Church. So then, as we cannot solidly reason from their use of arguing from the Church, that there is no better assurance absolutely; so neither could we from the silence of the testimony of the Spirit, argue, that we must only depend upon the Church. But thirdly, he might have observed in St. Austin the reason why they urged the authority of the Church for the confirmation of Scripture, in lib. de utilitate credendi cap. 5. Scripturae populariter accusari possunt, non possunt populariter defendi, namely, otherwise than by the Church: yet he also doth suffragate for us in his book against the Epistle of the Manich. Non jam hominibus sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram firmante atque illuminante; not men now, but God himself confirming and inlightning our mind within. And for triumph, Canisius and Hosius (besides Stapleton) of the Romanists are brought in with their testimonies to the same purpose, that we have a greater testimony of the Scriptures than the Church,Dr. Whit. De Eccles. p. 254. namely, that of the Spirit of God.
As for that which follows, Really I think if the Doctors of the Primitive Church had told the Heathens, &c. to the end of the Paragraph, how little doth it weigh with us. Really we may [Page 797] think that they think any thing will serve to make up weight. We can use, to such, the same argument with the Fathers without any derogation to our cause. And secondly, they did not plead the Church upon the Roman account: and therefore, if they will have all, they have no share. But to serve them in kind: Did the Doctors of the primitive Church tell the Heathens of our ordinary Pastor, which should be the Plenipotentiarie of the whole Church? Did they tell them of Transubstantiation? And had they told them that these things were as credible by the authority of the Church as by a light as evident as the Sun, the Heathens surely would have scoffed at them for saying them to be so visible. And again he argues from the visibility to the actuall sight, not considering what is requisit in the subject, namely, facultie and will.
This number is [...].Num. 25. the argument is this, there are as many raies observable in the book of Toby or Judith, as in so many chapters of the book of Numbers.
Ans. Would any one have expected so bold an assertion? But then why were these accounted amongst the rest Deuterocanonical? why were they not accounted by Jerom, by Eusebius, by Cyril of Jerusalem (as before) equal to the books Canonical, as to confirmation of faith? Why rejected by so many learned men, as Doctor White in his Defence of the true way doth cite, p. 32? Well. And how came the first Christian to distinguish them? Not by the authority of the Church: then by some difference in the books by the Divine illumination. For secondly, the Church [Page 798] hath not, as to the Canonicallnesse of books, vim operativam, but vim declarativam, as at most, even according to their greatest Doctors: and therefore this they do not [...], but ex officio: then either they were not declared in the primitive times, or were declared by some discrimination from the books: if they were not declared, there is no necessity now neither that they should be declared; if they were declared upon reason of the difference, then there are not such raies in the books Apocryphall. Thirdly, if these books were allways to be received as Canonicall, then the Church in the Primitive times erred in not receiving them. If they be not to be received as Canonicall, as they were not received so, then the Roman Church erreth in the receiving them for such. And this Dilemma is destructive of their infallibility.
Num. 26.A sixth argument is drawn from a possibility of some omission of some words in Scripture, as the little word [not,] to an impossibility of my discerning this omission only by the reading of Scripture.
Ans. The Scripture is either corrupted or not. If the former, how can we trust the Church of Rome, which pretends it self the Keeper: if not, the argument is void, and Bellarmin holds the latter. Secondly, Conditio impossibilis facit negativam: if it were false it could not be the word of God: therefore since we both acknowledge it to be the word of God, we cannot, ut sic, suppose such an omission. Thirdly, if there were a [not] left out, how should the Church [Page 799] have power to put it in? For then the Church would have power to contradict the old reading, and so to make Scripture: if the Church had not power, then it would be as uncertain as we. Fourthly, if there were a [not] left out in things substantiall and necessary, it would likely make a contradiction to other texts where the same matter is delivered (for it would be very hard to find ony point necessary to be one of those which are [...]) now since we both conclude no Contradiction in Scripture (for then it would not be true and infallible) we do [...] conclude that there is no such omission. Fifthly, if we may he perswaded by the Spirit of God, that the Scripture is the word of God, then consequently we are assured that there is not such an omission: but verum prius, ergo posterius.
Here we have a seventh argument,Num. 27. Luther who had the Spirit as well as I, if not in a larger measure, contradicts me in the Canonicallnesse of the Epistle of St. James and in ths book of the Revelation; therefore this ground of believing Canonicall books is fallible: since in a Contradiction one part must be false. And thus he thought to pay me in kind for my disputing the error of Councils by a Contradiction; which, he says, If you could prove, you should prove, that Councils are fallible.
Ans. As for the Metaphysicall Law in Contradictions, that one part must be false, if we hold any thing certainly true, we differ not.
And concerning the proof of Councils to be fallible by ones contradicting another, it comes in here but collaterally; this is not sedes materiae: and therefore as he brings it in we may passe it with a light foot.
In point of fact they will confesse they may as well contradict one another, as err.: and therefore we will not now insist upon the contradiction of the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Nice about the Epistle of Ibas. But did not the Council of Francford contradict the second Council of Nice in point of worship of Images? But also to give them exemplum utile; the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocryphal books, as not Canonical: the Council of Trent receives them for such, Ses. 4. So one contradicts another. And if it be said that the Council of Laodicea was not Generall; we answer, that it was as Generall as the Council of Carthage, which he urgeth below for he book of Maccabees: for this was but provinciall, by Carranza's confession. But then secondly, we say, though it was but provinciall, yet was it established by the sixth Generall Council, as Carranza also confesseth; and then consequently, the sixth Generall Council and the Council of Trent do contradict.
And now as to the contradiction betwixt Luther and me upon the case, I say first, that the argument is not yet valid to his purpose; the objects have themselves equally to all: but all have themselves not equally to objects: and yet, though Luther had a greater measure of the [Page 801] Spirit than I, it doth not follow neverthelesse, that this book could not be seen to be Divine by the Divine illumination; no more than it doth follow, that because St. Peter had a greater measure of the grace of God's Spirit, he could not deny his Master. As a larger measure of grace doth not exclude all possibility of sin; so neither doth a larger measure of the Spirit exclude all possibility of error. Secondly, was not the Church of Christ as quick-sighted, by the help of the Spirit, before the Council of Carthage, as then? And yet it seems by my Adversary, that the Church did not clearly propose the book of Maccabees to be Canonicall before that time: and therefore non-acknowledgement in some doth not prove against possibility of certain knowledge. And thus, if Luther's exceptions against those books were always continued in the height of termes (which yet is denied) he gaines nothing against us, since also, Thirdly, we return the Adversary his own argument, if the determinations of the Church be so clear, how doe they contradict one another?
Next follows the instance he puts of those two prime Doctors of the Church, St. Jerom and St. Austin, about the book of Maccabees. St. Austin, as he would have us think, held it for Canonicall: St. Jerom not. So then, here is Father against Father: and therefore consent of Fathers in all points is scarce a possible argument. But the cause, he says, of this difference was not our ground, (this we have spoken to) but because it was not clearly proposed [Page 802] in St. Jerom's time by the Church, But the third Council of Carthage (in which St Austin was present) declared these books to be God's word, and so St. Austin held these books infallibly to be God's word, &c.
Ans. Not to passe it, that St. Austin might be more likely to swallow the account of these books, because he had not skill in the Hebrew Canon, as the Greek he learned late. And not to passe it, that my Adversary names not the place where St. Austin held these books to be God's word, and infallibly too: it may be he held them so as the book of Wisedom, of which before: but my Adversary speaks one word here ingenuously, that the third Council of Carthage did but declare: well, and the Council of Laodicea did before declare the contrary. This was before St. Jerom's time, being celebrated in the year 364. as Carranza reckons: and the reason then, why St. Jerom refused that book, was not because he had not seen this Council of Carthage, as my Adversary says, but because he had read the Canons of the Council of Laodicea: for this was of equall authority to that of Carthage; being both provinciall; and both confirmed by the sixth Generall Council, as the former Author observes: and if so, then, by the way, the same Generall Council was guilty of a Contradiction, as establishing the Canons of those Councils, which in this point about the books of the Maccabees, are repugnant one to other. Again, if the authority of the Council of Carthage did bind St. Austin (who subscribed it) as to the acknowledgement of these books for Canonicall; then [Page 803] the twenty sixth Canon of the same Council doth equally bind, ‘That the Bishop of the first sea should not be called the Prince of the Priests, or the supreme Priest, or any such thing, but onely the Bishop of the first sea.’ Therefore let the Roman either not urge this Council against us, or receive it against himself. Nay, lastly, we can better answer the Canon against us than Carranza answers the Canon against Rome's Supremacy. For, the reason which my Adversary gives out of the Canon for reception of those books, doth not oblige to receive them equally to Canonical books, namely, because we have received from our Fathers, that they were read in the Church. The strength of this reasoning is resolved into this proposition, Whatsoever is read in the Church is to be taken for Canonical: and this proposition is false by the practice of the Church of England, by St. Jerom's distinction: yea, also by the Canon it self, for it sayes, Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur: Itmay be lawfull also to read the passions of the Martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. And also if that reason did bind the Fathers in the Council of Carthage to establish them as Canonical, why did it not as well bind St. Jerom in whose time the books also were read, if they were universally read? And if the Church of God was sufficiently instructed in point of faith without them till St. Austin's time (which was above four hundred years after Christ, as Bellarmin confesseth) why may not the Church be well enough without them still? For either there must be nothing in them materiall or [Page 804] expositionall, which is simply necessary for Gods Church: or else the Church of God for the purest and best times must be unprovided thereof, as Canonically to ground faith. If they confesse the former, we have what we would: if the latter, besides other consequences, they destroy the rule of faith to Councils themselves; or as some now will say, by succession of tradition. Therefore by this instance he gets nothing, it is neither proof nor disproof.
Num. 28.Here he triumphs before the victory, he doth here put a new face upon an old argument. If you say that we must have a speciall Spirit (that is new eyes) to see it, then you who have this Spirit are all Prophets, discovering, by private Revelation made to your selves, that which all mankind besides could not and cannot discover.
This argument prophylactical preserves them little: A speciall Spirit is considerable two ways; either in ordine ad subjectum, or in ordine ad objectum: it may be speciall in the first sense; and not in the latter: Now it is the speciall Spirit in the latter sense which makes the Prophet; when some new thing is revealed: thus we deny any speciall Spirit; which rather belongs to them who will not have all things for necessary faith and manners revealed in Scripture, that so they may find in the Church, by tradition, the points of their Religion which they cannot find in Scripture; as is noted. But also the speciall faith in the first sense may be subdistinguished; it is considerable either as [Page 805] oppositly to those who have not faith; or respectively to those who have faith: in the first way, we say it is speciall; for all men have not faith, as the Apostle speaks. 2 Thes. 3.2. but if it be taken respectively to those who have faith, we say it is not speciall; but common: for there is no true dogmaticall faith but such; as Stapleton and their Schoolmen confesse. Yea, this argument may be returned to them too, if they say they are inlightned by the Spirit to see all truth infallibly to be delivered by the Church, they have the new eyes; and they are all Prophets, discerning by private revelation made to them selves that which all mankind besides could not discover. So then the other old argument, which here he incrustates, that if the evidence of Scripture to be the word of God were such as of a prime principle, as this [It is impossible that any thing should be and not be in the self same circumstances] then all should assent to it, as they do to this principle, is again slighted: for first, every one hath not that supernaturall light or eye to see the truth of that first principle, that the Scripture is the word of God; which we have said before: but then secondly, the prime principle in Metaphysicks are not so clear as to exclude all necessity of means of knowledge of them, though they do naturally perswade assent: so there are means of knowing the Scripture, which do not prejudice their autopisty through the Spirit of God: and therefore there may be a failing of belief. Yea, thirdly, the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, John 3.8. Yea, fourthly, many truths are assented to [...], as he said, which are [Page 806] not prophorically acknowledged. And yet some of their own men have confessed this truth, being overcome by the soveraignty of it. Fifthly, it is retorted, if the authority of the Church were the prime principle for the evidence of faith, then all would assent to it: but all doe not assent to it: therefore by his own argument, the Church's authority is not the prime principle.
But the assistance of the Spirit he then pleads a fortiori for the Church, the Church having far more proof of her assistance than every private Protestant.
Ans. First, we have no to need be put upon the compare with the Church. If the Church have infallible assistance herein: yet private Christians may have it too; and that would be sufficient for us in this point. But secondly, the Church is no otherwise infallibly certain hereof than we: for this is assured to every one that votes it in the Council, the same way; if indeed they doe give their suffrage upon a ground infallible. Thirdly, the private Christian is assured hereof by the Spirit for himself: therefore the Council needs not be infallible herein as to teach it, because we are thus taught of God. If the compare were thus, if the private Christian were thus assisted to teach others, much more the Council, this would be somewhat like: but the private Christian doth not undertake this: and yet doth it not follow that this infallibility doth attend the Council which doth undertake to teach others: because there [Page 807] is use of its teaching without infallibility: and no need of its teaching infallibly this point, which we are infallibly perswaded of by the Spirit of God. And fourthly, we deny that there is any points of as much consequence, wherein the Church should be assisted with infallibility, as this, that the Scripture is the word of God: because, if we be assured of this, we need not depend upon any infallibility in the Church for other points, since all things necessary are with sufficient plainnesse set down in the Scripture. Fifthly, as before, the Christians were assured hereof before Pope or Council, in which he placeth the authority infallible of the Church. And again, if the universall Church had this priviledge they speak of, they are to prove themselves to be first a true part: and then also, that the part hath the property of the whole: and when they have done these, we can say as much, yea, more for our own Church. And lastly, they are yet to shew their clearer proofs of assistance to the Church, than a private Christian hath for the hardest of all points: namely, that the Scripture is the word of God: which indeed, if it be compared with the points of Controversie in Divinity, is not the hardest point: and is therefore assured us by the Spirit, not because it is the hardest point, but because it is the ground of all faith. Perhaps, because our Divines often call the Scriptures, an undoubted principle, the first principle, you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences, which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident.
Ans. No, I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines, although we need no more, if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute. But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground: or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith, than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works. Yea, moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture, because it is true of it: it is not true, because they say it: and yet if it were true, because they say it: we make use of the Conclusion. Or if it be an unquestioned principle, because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties, then why doth my Adversary call this into question, which is the subject of the question, and by all parties granted? And also this makes it to be a common principle, that it is granted by all parties. And therefore are we to be tryed by it, as by a common principle: and not by the Church, which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by; specially, if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church: for then there will be a double Controversie; one in thesi, whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church; and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church.
But we now put together that which he distinguisheth, the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle, but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable, [Page 809] &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 [Page 810] 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 [Page 812] 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 [Page 813] 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: [Page 814] 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, [Page 815] 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 know, that de officio, this is the way of constituting, and so of distinguishing the Church: and de facto, this is the way that S. Austin, and also some of their owne Divines do prove the Church by: yea, this is the way which my Adversaries must take and do. And thirdly, neither do we say, that we believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit, but to those who do professe the beliefe of the Scripture to be the word of God. And therefore are we even with them in this kinde: for as they deale with Heathens as to the proofe of Scripture by the Church: so do we also, as the Fathers were wont by the Church universal. And I can use the authority of the Church as an inducement unto the Heathen, although the Pontificians cannot use the authority of the Chnrch to me as the determinative of faith. So then if they can prove the authority of the Church infallibly to be [Page 817] infallible without dependence upon the Scripture, they shall indeed speak to the purpose: Otherwise they are shut up in a circle, out of which they can never move their foot.
The thirty second number hath in it much and little—longae, Num. 32.
Ambages: sed summa sequor fastigia rerum.
The intendment of it is to fix the wheel, by assuring the Church to be infallible without running to the Scripture.
In the beginning of it it would prove their faith good, because they believed those, who delivered it, had Commission from God. But this satisfieth not, because the question rebounds upon them, why they believed that those, who delivered it had Commission from God. If they say they had assurance thereof by the Spirit, then they come to our kind of assurance.
Therefore they determine this belief upon two motives; one comming from the Doctrine in order to God, change of life; the other from God in order to the Doctrine, in miracles, and there he amplifies in two leaves, which might have been dispatched in three words. Indeed the first he says not much of; for it is no concluding argument. For first, it doth not distinguish Doctrines: for thus the Jew, the Arrian, the Socinian, the Sectary might prove his Doctrine infallible. Secondly, the good life, if it were a result of Doctrine, yet not from the points of difference, but the generall fundamentalls of Christian faith, wherein the Controversies lie not. Yea, thirdly, if this new life did proceed by way of emanation or absolute connexion from the points of difference, we might join issue with them and have the better. Yea, [Page 818] fourthly, Judas had a right Commission and yet no good life. Yea, fifthly, the manners are rather to be proved good by the practicall Doctrine, than speculative Doctrine (if any Doctrine ultimately be such) proved good by manners. Therefore good life is no [...] of Divine Doctrine; nor yet of a Divine Commission. Yea, sixthly, Dato non concesso, that we mighr know the Church, and Doctrine of it to be infallible by good life; yet this is not conformable to their postulate, that God should teach us all verity by the mouth of the Church, as Stapleton speaks.
Then as to the other motive of faith in the true Church, namely, miracles, we can say severall things; first in thesi, miracles are no certain distinctive of a Divine Commission, because the man of sin may deceive by lying wonders, as St. Paul speaks 2 Thes. 2.9. And also Moses, Deut. 13.1, 2. Then this is no infallible motive for the believing of a Commission from God, because we may be deceived in it. And although upon supposition of a true miracle we might conclude a Commission from God, yet this is not the way infallible because we may be deceived in the truth of the miracle, whether it be such or not: since the miracle cannot fidem facere de se, as the testimony of the Spirit can. Secondly, the gift of miracles was a gift common to those who were not all Prophets as to penning of the Scripture; and also not common, for ought we know, to some who did, as St. Mark and S. Luke, therefore this is not sufficient to resolve our faith in their Commission, because not given Omni nor soli: for whatsoever doth distinguish must have it self per modum differentiae. [Page 819] Thirdly, therefore since we must have faith to believe the miracles to be true, we ask how we come to this faith: if by the operation of the Spirit; then faith ultimately is fixed upon our foundation, namely, the testimony of the Spirit, by which we may as well be assured that the Scripture is the true word of God, as that miracles are true. Fourthly, the gift of miracles was temporary and accomodated for that season of the Church. And therefore cannot we prove by miracles new Doctrines, as Invocation of Saints, worshipping of Images, Communion in one kinde, Transubstantiation, Supremacy of the Roman Bishop: therefore if miracles did infallibly ascertain the divine Commission of the Prophets and Apostles to speak and write: yet are not we satisfied by them in the question of new Doctrines, which the Scripture gives us no account of; but therefore he comes to Oral tradition. For, as for his reasoning in form thus, in hypothesi, The Preachers preached the Doctrine of our Church; God confirmed their Doctrine by miracles: therefore the Doctrine of our Church was confirmed by miracles, it is [...]. For first (not to carp at the form of his syllogism) we say to the proposition, that if they preached the Doctrine of the Roman Church as differently from the whole Church, they preached what they ought not to preach; and so the minor proposition is false. If they did preach the same doctrine which the whole Church received in Scripture from the Apostles, then we grant the minor and the conclusion too, as much as doctrine can be confirmed by miracles; but we distinguish of the time when the miracles were wrought; namely in the time of the Apostles, and by them. For, as for miracles done by S. Austin to confirm the same faith which we abolished in our [Page 820] reformation; we say that Bede and Gregory and Brierly, whom he quotes for testimony hereof, are not to us surely of sufficient authority in their own cause. Nay secondly, they had best not add the testimony of the learned Magdeburgians, lest they be ashamed to slight them in other matters; but also chiefly upon this consideration; because, if the points of difference were confirmed by many miracles, (which he refers us to Brierly in his Index for) then by the Argument before, those points of difference were new: for as miracles have themselves to faith; so new miracles to new faith. And if it was a new faith, then it was not received by oral tradition from the Apostles successively: and then they are undone. Therefore let them speak no more to us of the miracles of S. Austin the Monk, who shewed nothing so much wonderful as his pride in obtruding upon old Christians, ancienter than Tertullian's Prescriptions; therefore it is too much curtesie to take any notice of what he saies about the faith brought into England by S. Austin: and yet we can make use of it too: for if it be so as he saies, that the faith brought into England by St. Austin was the same faith which was abolished by our reformation then we have abolished none but the Roman faith: and the Christian faith in the general principles of it we had before. And this might be enough for the virtue of miracles: but that he saies miracles are called a testimony greater than John the Baptist. Are they so? then we take leave to shew what his words in two places will come to, even in the same page 72. before in the same p. he had said that a miracle doth not make a thing so prudently credible as universal tradition; here he saies that a miracle is a greater testimony than John the Baptist: whence we argue thus; That which is greater than that which is greater [Page 821] is greater than that which is less: miracles are here said to be greater testimony than John the Baptist; and John the Baptist's testimony was greater than of Universal Tradition; then miracles are a greater testimony than of universal Tradition. But let this pass.
And now we shall touch upon what he saies about Tradition: saving that we must smile at what he saies about the truth of their miracles, that there is as little to be said against them, as against the miracles of the Prophets and Apostles. This is not to be answered until the miracles of the Maid of Kent may be compared with those of Elijah and S. Peter, and until their Doctrine, which they would have confirmed by their miracles, be found as good and authentick as that of the Apostles, which was confirmed by their miracles. But to Tradition we come. Thus was the first age assured of God's word by the oral tradition of the first Pastors of the Church, who had received it in the name of God from the Apostles, who gave their Writings to them.
Ans. This is not much to their purpose. For first, unless oral tradition did exclude the divine testimony of Gods Spirit, they cannot say that the first Age was assured by this and not by that. And this testimony is not excluded neither by oral tradition nor by miracles simply: for Gods Spirit might assure them of the truth of each: and then the last ground of faith is the testimony of the Spirit. Secondly, let orall tradition be restrained as to object of thing: or let it equally be proved of the new points forementioned, otherwise they have not by orall tradition sufficient benefit. Thirdly, notwithstanding the Apostles own preachings, which were more than oral tradition, and notwithstanding all miracles done by the Apostles, which both equally had themselves [Page 822] to al then hearers of the one or spectators of the other yet as many as were ordained to eternal life believed Acts 13.48. So that the belief did effectually follow upon the efficacy of the Spirit of God applying the means of faith home to their Consciences. It is not said as many as did believe were ordained to eternall life, as if the belief foreseen had it self antecedenter to the ordination; but as many as were ordained to eternall life believed. Fourthly, as for the Jews and Proselytes they had also, who lived in the time of Christ, for the means of their assurance, Moses and the Prophets; who had prophesied of Christ and Christian Doctrine.
And as for that which follows, that the first Pastors (besides their oral tradition) did assure them that the Spirit of God would abide with the Church, teaching her all truth, &c. We answer, first, if the first Pastors did teach any thing, they could teach nothing but what they received from the Apostles who gave their writings to them, as before: and why then may not we take it better from the writings of the Apostles than from their teaching? for primum in suo genere est mensura reliquorum. But secondly, where have they sufficient inducement of belief either by orall tradition, or miracles, or whatsoever prudential motives, that this respects the Church under the formality of a Representative? Yea, thirdly therefore, if so, how was it made true to the Church in those Centuries wherein there was no formall Representative; namely, for 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church, as himself says in this Paragraph? Fourthly, if this promise attended the Church under the account of a Representative, yet of the whole Church: and what is this to the Roman Church which is but a part even in St. Jeroms [Page 823] judgement in his Epistle to Evagrius? Yea, also fifthly, that promise was not spoken by the Apostles to the Church, but by Christ to the Apostles, and therefore can it not be drawn down in a parallel line to all the ages of the Church: and therefore that which follows in the 71 p. is without any foundation. Debile fundamentum fallit opus.
But he reinforceth the power of universal tradition. Now there is nothing which can make any thing more prudently credible than universall tradition, and so he prefers it to a miracle.
Ans. And have they vouched universal tradition? by universall tradition they may be cast: for they cannot find universall tradition for their supernumerary points: and there was universal tradition for some points which they have cast off, as before; namely, the millenary point, and infant baptism. So then, by their own argument, they are unprovided of such a proof than which nothing can make a thing more prudently credible. Secondly, if he means by the terms [prudently credible] precisely such, then he derogates from infallibility: and so all this discourse comes short of the state of the question, which respects infallible assurance. If he means it subordinatly to that which makes infallible assurance, then why doth he insist upon this as the primum mobile of all faith? and then let them tell us what that is which doth absolutely fix belief, and determines doubting. And surely the terms he useth per se do seem to be termini diminuentes, that which is urg'd as prudently credible abstracts necessarily from that which is infallibly credible: for they are sub diverso genere. And so when all comes to all, upon the whole matter, and at the foot of the account, all faith goes no higher than a prudentiall assent. Then thirdly, therefore as [Page 824] to the force of the Argument, he hath no Adversary; for we can say so to, Nothing can make any thing more prudently credible than universall tradition: and we can make use of this motive as well as the Roman, yea, somewhat better, because he will shrink the whole Church into one City of Rome. But fourthly, suppose nothing in the kind of that which is prudently credible, as such, were above universall tradition: yet this concludes not rightly that absolutely, or in an higher kind nothing is more credible: for this testimony of the Spirit, which is not yet disproved, makes a thing not only prudently credible, but necessarily and in the way of Divine faith. And that which is prudently credible doth not include this: but this eminently includes that which is prudentiall credibility.
Yet he goes on. Yet here I intreat you to mark how they resolv'd their faith then, &c. namely, in the space of the 200 years and more wherein they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church.
Ans. This I have marked and not precariously. But what shall I see in it that will give a sober man any satisfaction? For first, what if they did believe the soul to be immortall, because God said it by the Church; and the Church, because it said that it had Commission from God, is authorized with infallibility; and did also believe this because the Church said so; and why so, because they would do so? what of all this? therefore we are not infallibly assured that the Scripture is the word of God by the testimony of the Spirit? If they did believe indeed in way of a Divine faith, then the Spirit of God did assure them by tradition. For otherwise [Page 825] they forsake the antient Theological account of faith; and they must either say, that faith is not an habit infused; or that it may be an habit infused without the Spirit of God, but if they believed improperly, or in the way of humane faith, (as we doe believe there are seven hills at Rome, without universall tradition or a miracle) then this is not to the purpose; for the discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench: we can say as much without contradiction to our cause. Secondly, they cannot surely expect that we should gratifie them so much as to say there is as much reason to believe tradition now as then, because now they themselves will say, that we have the benefit of what assurance the general Councils can make. And also 3. we must here note out of their own words, for the use of our cause, that for the space of 200 years and more they had nothing but tradition to make them give an infallible assent to their Church: So then for the same space they had not the coroboration of general Councils: and therefore these do not make the reason of belief simply as they would have it, because the Church was so long without them. 4. Though the universal comprehends particulars, yet a particular doth not comprehend an universal: therefore whatsoever assent is due to tradition universal is not due to tradition particular of Rome. This is their trick to build all upon the common ground of the whole Church: and then to inclose the universal Church within the walls of Rome. This we must enter our plea against upon all occasions. 5. We see they are come off unto some latitude in their conception of faith, because the last resolution in this quest of faith they make to be thus, and they would do so because they would do so, and again, because it had been more folly not to accept of this [Page 834] Church's Commission to teach them infallibly all truths: So that now the acquiscence of the soul in the deep mistery of faith must be terminated and determined upon rhe variable point and principle of prudence; and that which must eternaly setle our mind in the first and last ground of infallibility, must be this; we do so because we will do so, or because it were folly not to believe. So then, since, currente rota, the discourse is come to this; let us have our liberty to believe as we do believe, because we see it to be folly (for ought can be seen by them) to accept the Church's Commission to teach infallibly all truths. Sixthly, if they say all truths, then they seem to be fallen from their former Concession, and also Stapleton's, that some truths may be believed without necessity of the Church. Seventhly, as for the immortality of the soul, which they insist in to have been believed, because God said it by the Church, we say easily, that this might with lesse difficulty be received from the Church, because it is surely probable, and some will say demonstrable, by reason: and therefore is not only asserted by Plato, who might have it from the Jewes by redundance in Aegypt, (whither he and Pythagoras and some others travelled for wisdom, as Justin Martyr witnesseth) but also in effect, as I think, by Aristotle. And also here certainly they must be put to distinguish betwixt the Church of Rome and the whole Church; or else his words are not true; or else Pope John the 22. did not belong to the Church; for he did not commend to others the Faith of the Immortality of the Soul.
And yet he goes on. Which Commission, to teach them infallibly all truth they knew by tradition to [Page 835] have been ever accepted as Divine by all good people. This reason, if I may say so, is surely full of it self, but not solid, for it doth in effect run round again; and the Faith of the Church is proved by the Church: for they make all good people to be convertible with the Church: and therefore they make the holy Catholick Church to be the visible. But how then is the Church Regula regulata, the Rule ruled, as hath been confessed before? Secondly, must we content our selves with this in the grand concernment of faith, because the Church did accept this Commission as Divine, which we know by Tradition? but how shall we know this Tradition to be of the Church, before we know the Church? Are they advised of this? then must we come to be assured of the Doctrine before we be assured of the Church. And this Doctrine we must be assured of independently of the Church, because we cannot know the Church but by the Doctrine; and by the Doctrine of the Scripture too, as S. Austin discourseth against the Donatists. Thirdly, if all good people know by tradition this Commission to be divine, then my Adversary needed not to have pinched the last resolution of faith so as to have said, they believed, because they would do so, or because it had been meer folly not to accept this commission: for though universal Tradition cannot transcend its sphere unto a causality of proper faith divine; yet hath it more reason in it than to make a generall beliefe arbitrary, or to preserve the act of it from folly in the negative. A Divine assurance will not be compared with a negative prudence: but universal tradition doth surpass it. We had best then compound the difference [Page 836] betwixt himself by a kind of division thus, negative prudence was suitable to his former proof (Aqua ascendit quantum descendit) but Divine assurance (which I suppose he urgeth by tradition) is necessary for the question. For the certainty of faith is such as cui non potest subesse falsum, in which there can be no falsity: and therefore probability cannot make faith; and negative prudence can amount no higher than probability. Fourthly, if we must now set the basis and the foundation of all Divine faith in universal tradition, then Mr. Chillingworth carries the victory clearly from the Romanist: for this he disputed for in opposition to the Roman. Fifthly, All good people cannot make a demonstration or faith of a Conclusion. And we have cause to note this as invalid, because if goodness of manners were simply probative of true faith, then we should be all nought in the Roman opinion, because we differ with them in faith: for if we had been all good people, we should have accepted their grounds; and hence we see their pretended reason of uncharitableness to us; wherein they communicate with Sects or Sects with them. But if goodness of life be so profitable for proof of truth, then my Adversary with the rest of the Pontificians do not so wisely distinguish betwixt morality and infallibility in their Popes: For surely then Gregory the seventh had been no good head of the Church; nor Alexander the sixth, who surely laughed▪ in his sleeve when he said to an Ambassadour, Quantum lucri nobis peperitilla fabula de Christo, I had thought goodnesse had not belonged to a professor of Divinity, as such. Indeed it becoms all Scholars to be very good: but this is one of the first times that I heard of this argument. Let them therefore put in some formall principle of discerning truth, [Page 837] as goodness is not; unless the will can prescribe to the judgement, as the judgement to the will, and if it can, they have the worse cause. Therefore may we conclude this long Paragraph with a sober denial of what he concludes it with: the ground upon which you believe Scripture to be the word of God, is thought to be Chimaerical by some of your best Writers. It is proved otherwise, and that it is not accounted foolish or Chimerical by some of the best of our Writers, we have seen before; neither Mr. Hooker nor Mr. Chillingworth: nay, nor by some of their best Writers neither, as Stapleton; besides some others quoted by Dr. White, as before. But if he would stand to St. Austin, he might have spared this dispute about Scripture; for we are not to dispute the truth of Scripture, he says, as of other writings. To conclude then this number in kind, we might as well take the boldnesse to say, that their ground upon which they stand in the maintenance of their faith as different from us, is, ‘ [...].’
A Lion before, a Dragon behind, and a Chimera in the middle.
In this number he urgeth unsecurity of our grounding faith, as to the ignorant, in translations:Num. 34. but this hath been by him pressed before, and by me answered: and nothing is here replied by him: but somewhat more is promised, ch. 4. n. 9. And therefore might we skip it, but it may be he would interpret our omission to his advantage. He says then. How unsecurely the greater part of your Religion did ground their faith, because they must trust the translations of private men, and believe them rather and use them rather [Page 838] than the translations used by the Church in Generall Councils.
Ecce iterum Crispinus — but we answer, in this he would have three propositions granted him; one, that Generall Councils did use their Latine translation. Secondly, that our translations are the off-spring of private men. Thirdly, that most of us must ground their faith in the trust of private mens translations. To these we answer in three words, and in generall, denying all of them. As to the first, we say that the General Councils which were celebrated in Greece did not surely make use of the Latine translation. Nay, secondly, their Latine translation, which they would have to be Jerom's for antiquity, was not at first received in the Church, but denied by St. Austin. Yea, thirdly, their Latine translation, which now they use cannot be St. Jerom's: for I hope it was mended by Sixtus Quintus, and again refined by Clement the eighth and surely though it was Canonized by the Trent Council before it was made; yet surely it was not made currant in the Church for use before it was born. And if they say, there is no reall and materiall difference betwixt their Latine as now and in antient times, we say first, absolutely, that Isider Clarius, who came after Clement, will then find fault with both in severall thousand places: But then also we say in compare, neither are there any reall and materiall differences in our English from the original. But fourthly, did the Generall Councils use the Latine translation for their Judge in Scripture, then are not the Generall Councils infallible, because that translation was not infallibly made; nor made infallible by the Church even in the Trent [Page 839] Council, as some of their own have intimated, as before.
To the second proposition, we give also a denial. Our English translation is not to be accounted the translation of private men; because it is authorized by our Church, although at first made by private men: And what if they yet made good to hinder as great an assistance of the spirit of God to the establishment of this Translation, as they finde for their Remish Testament. That which is made by private men is made more than private by authority of the Church. And if they deny this distinction, they undo all their Councils. And if they say our Church hath it self, as a private part, to the whole: so we say doth the Roman, [...].
Thirdly, As to the third proposition, we deny it also: the most do not trust in the Translations: nay, none do trust in Translations, simply; because they are not Scripture, as per se; but analogically to the Scripture in the originall. So that ultimately they are assured, that the translation is in the matter agreeable to Scripture, as they are assured that the Scripture is the word of God, namely, through faith infused by the Spirit of God. So they do not believe the Translation, but that which is translated. The Translation formally is no mean to assure their Faith; but is a mean of conveyance of it to their knowledge. And surely our people may as well believe that the Translation is as free from all damnative error; as their people may believe what their Church proposeth to be free from damnative error: first, because they rely upon a Translation that teach, and a Translation not so good, Secondly, because our people can consult [Page 840] the Translation: so cannot their people understand the Vulgar Latine: and therefore if those who translated it were not deceived, yet those who propose it may deceive the people: and thirdly, because the authority of their Translation were far greater, yet was it made by those Priests of theirs deeply interessed in this cause; as well as he saies our might be by private Ministers deeply interessed in this cause: and also because yet is not their Translation infallible, as hath been proved: and therefore cannot the people believe the Church. And the Argument is thus: If the Church of Rome were infallible then in the Translation of the Bible; and the reason of the consequence is demonstrated from the end of it appointed in the fourth session of the Trent Council, Ʋt in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur: this the end of the institution of it, that in all readings, disputations, preachings and expositions, it should be held for authentick; and therefore if ever they would put out all their power of infallibility, then surely in this translation; but now falsum posterius; this translation is not infallible, as hath been proved and confessed by some of their learnedst men; as also might be instanced in the reading of ipsa for ipsum, attributing that to the Virgin which all the translation, (with the Hebrew) in our great Bible attribute to the Seed, namely, to Christ, Gen. 3.15. Therefore may we surely as well believe our translations as they their Church. Therefore let them hereafter not send us such arguments as will be returnable with use.
This thirty fifth Paragraph he might also have forborn, wherein he thought to pinch me with uncertainty of true copies of the original. For this will fall upon them in the full weight, for we have as good Copies of the Originals as the Romans; If we had ours from them, then I hope we have as good▪ if not, then we depended not, at first, of them. Whether we believe the Copies we have to be true by the Church, this question hath it self accidentally to the truth of the Copies, because if we have not the true Copies, the Church cannot make that which is not true to be true, as the Papists themselves confesse, and if we be led by that faith which is certain, though we are not so assured of it to be so, we may attain Salvation, may we not? If not, then have the Papists no such reason to pick a quarrel with us about certainty of Salvation in the Subject.
To speak then more punctually, we can use the Roman Copies if we had none other, without their infalibility: Utile per inutile non vitiatur, and if we have any others, as it should seem we have upon the true account of the antiquity of the British Churches, then we comparing them with theirs, can find that ours are true Originals; if theirs be. For as for the knowledge of them to be undoubtedly true Originals by the credit of the best Churches, this cannot rationally do it, because (if there be a doubt of the true Originals) we must first know which is the best Church by the true Original. Therefore let them tell us which Church is best to be trusted in this case, they will say, the best; but the question returns, which is the best? This we must know by the true Original, and this is it which is in question, so that we must be primarily assured some other way either of the Church or of the true Original: and what way can that be but by the testimony of the Spirit, by whom all Faith is ingenerated? and then they come about again to us in genere: either to be assured by the Holy Ghost that this is the best Church, [Page 842] or that this is the true Original. If the latter, then by this we are assured of Scripture, if the former, then however the last resolution is by the Spirit of God.
This in general concerning the true Originals, He descends to the original of the Old Testament, as for the Hebrew all must know that the antient Hebrew Copies were all written without points that is in substance, without vowels.
Answ. If the Romans could determine all controversies by supposition as they do this, they then indeed might pretend to be Judges of all controversies: he might have considered that this hath been a mighty question as appears by the discourse about it on each part of the contradiction.
And as to this, they are wrapped into as great difficulty as we, untill they can prove two points, First that their Church put the Points or Vowells, Puncta vocalia, to the words. Secondly, that their Church did it infallibly, for though the Church did it, yet if theirs be not the Church, they are never the whit the nearer; and if theirs be the Church, and they did it not infallibly, they are not yet Masters of their end. Secondly, we except against his presumption of all Copies to be written without points; there is not the same probability as some learned men will think: because though ordinarily the words were not pointed with Vowels in every Copy, yet the Kings Copy had Points to it. And thirdly, Do they think that the Moral Law was written by the Finger of God without Points? If not, then they knew commonly what Vowels should be put without the Church: for the Church did not put the points thereunto as the Pontificians think, and if the Decalogue had Points put to it by the Finger of God, then All not without Points, and why not the rest of the old Testament with points? Fourthly, Let any of my Adversaries say Shibboleth, and if he doth pronounce it right, let him tell me how he knows he doth pronounce right, he will say by tradition; well then yet [Page 843] he doth not know it by the credit of a particular Church: but let him tell me how, at first, this came to be pronounced by the Gileadite, and not Sibboleth, as by the Ephramite, Judges the 12? If then they knew that the Punctum samin was right, why did not the Jews know a pari the other points? Fiftly, Though the points were put to the Consonants afterwards, yet is it not necessary that the Epach hereof should be 476 years after Christ at the well of Tilerias, as Bellarmin would have it: For he himself saies, That some thinks the Points were put to (the Pentateuch) by Moses or by some excellent Doctor of the Law before the time of Christ, it may be Ezra, as some may think. Sixtly, If the Jewish Rabbies did fit vowels to the Hebrew Letters, yet surely did they not put false Points to corrupt the Text, because then surely they would have corrupted the Text in those places which speak of the Messiah to be such as Jesus was: which being not done, Bellarmin takes it to be an Argument that they did not corrupt the Scripture in his 2. b. de verbo dei 2. chap. And therefore, as for that famous Text in this kind Psal. 22. [...] for [...] Bellarmine saith, That it is evidently inferred that it was an error of the Scribe in the same Chapter, because St. Jerom, who did profess that he did render the Hebrew strictly, renders it foderunt. Therefore however the controversie goes betwixt Buxtorfiui and Capellus, what can from hence be concluded which concerns us in specie? Let Bll be Bill, or Bell, or Ball, or Bull, yet is there nothing in Hebrew for the Pope or his Bull, whether then the perfidious Iews had honesty enough to deliver to us true Copies, with true Points, and Vowels, Let their Bellarmin be judge in the former Chap. And yet moreover, surely it is more probable, that if the Points were first put by the Jews, to the Consonants, at the well of Tilerias, yet they were not put by the perfidious Iews, if he took it for the unbelieving Jews, but by the believing Jews.
But yet my Adversary must needs object an expression [Page 844] of the most Reverend, and Learned Arch-Bishop of Armah, [...], concerning the variety of Sections in the New Testament, which Cressy also takes notice of. But as to this, upon supposition, this concerns Christians, Secundum rationem generalem, and therefore one would think that we should not be bound to give an account of it as to an Heathen. But so the Roman adversaries must order their attains, that either there must be no Christian Faith but theirs onely. Secondly, those various Sections, do they make any substantial change in the matter of sence, or any contrariety to the Analogie of other Texts, or not? If not, what can be the consequence from hence to the Church? If so, then how can the right reading be restored by the Church but through the Holy Ghost? Well then, in a Councel also or not, if in a Councel, how was the Church herein assured for the first three hundred years? if without a Councel, then why is infallibility tied to a Councel confirmed by a Pope, as my Adversary sayes? Thirdly, we have no reason to depend upon the Roman Church for our security, in such variety of readings, since we have the more variety for them; and in Manuscripts too, as Dr. Iames asserts in his corruption of Fathers, Councils and Scriptures, so this comes to the Proverb, Ovem lupo commisisti. But fourthly, they make a very ill Argument for themselves, for if it be so uncertain, which is, not onely a true Transla [...]ion, but also which is the true Original, then how shall we be certain whether the Church be infallible since the An sit of this point must finally be determined by Scripture? Fiftly, we may be certainly as certain as they; for we have the true Original from them, or not; if we have, then we are as well as they: if not any Original from them, then how do we depend upon them for the Christian Faith as they? If we had the Original Language from them and not the true, then they deceived us by ignorance or worse. And how should we be bound to believe in them then, as our infallible [Page 845] Guides? Sixtly, That admirable Prelate did me the Honour himself to tell me upon an application to him, that as for the variety of Sections, they were observed by him to be of divers sorts, and some inconsiderable: and those of any moment not so many as there will be such danger to have them appear, for they are intended to be Printed with the great Bible.
A touch we have also in this number of St. Matthews Gospel, but this hath been agitated before. But yet I cannot but observe how confidently these Romanists speak, As for the new Testament, St. Matthews Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, & that original is quite lost▪ as if it were as sure as Gospel that it was written originally in Hebrew not preached onely, but written in Hebrew, and also that it was quite lost, if lost, we may, or may we not think upon the rule in the Trent History, he is to be suspected to be Author of a mischief who hath the interest in it?
So then, we see nothing to the contrary, but that yet the term infallibility is an unfortunate term, for it loseth at all turnes.
Neither will they be able to get off clearely from all inextricable difficulties, whatsoever they say of us.N. 36. For first, they suppose that they receive the vulgar translation upon as good authority, as those who received the first Original copies. And have they no better certainty for the first original copies? Then they take a course to make Christianity ridiculous, but this they will say for the honour of their Church, Ridente turcâ nec dolente judaeo, let Christianity crack so Rome stands. So then, by this principle of theirs, if the vulgar Latin hath no certain credibility, neither the original copies, as if the original copies had came onely from Rome, as the vulgar latin, but for this latin Bible we are referred to the fourth Chap. Yet here he gives me a perstriction for objecting to them Isidor Clarius, correcting of it in so many places. If Isidor Clarius in any one title importing Faith and Manners, [Page 846] differs from what we receive upon this infallible authority, we have nothing to do with him. And is this all?
But first, he needs not make an if of it, for if he will peruse but his Preface, he shall find him to profess that he used a great deal of moderation lest offence should be taken, and that it might not seem to be a new Translation; and yet he saith, Loca tamen ad octo millia annotata, atque a nobis emendata sunt, eight thousand places have been marked and mended by me. And do none of them, think you, respect faith and manners?
Secondly, Me thinks they are warping and coming off again to the former distinction, that the Church could not be proposer of any damnative error, importing Faith and Manners. And this in Mr. Knot's opinion, as before, spoiles all. So then the Church might erre, in this translation, from the Originals, but not in things importing Faith or Manners.
Thirdly, Do they then think there was any fault at all in the Original Copies which the first Church received▪ If so, then there must be faults in Original Scripture: If not, now can they receive the vulgar Translation with an equal Faith of infalibility, as they do the Original Copies? Let Cardinal Bellarmin rebate somewhat that high Conceit of the Authentiknesse of the vulgar Latin (which they know was but a product of a Council) in his 26. de Author. Concil. the 12. ch. Let them, from thence, consider whether the Scriptures are not to be preferred before the Decrees of Councels in many regards, where he will tell them, at the latter end of the Chap. that that of Gregory, reverencing the four Councils General, as the four Gospels is to be qualified, illud [sicut] sonare similitudinem non aequalitatem that that [As] doth signifie similitude not equality, indeed, as Iustin Martyr saies of Plato, That what he had said well in things Divine, he doth mingle and confound with contrariety, for fear of Mars-hill, lest he should suffer for it, as Socrates; so this the Cardinal [Page 847] doth seem to retract in the following words, (for fear of the seven hills) as to equality of infalibility, but yet in Iudiciis particularibus, & in judiciis morum, quae non toti Ecclesiae sell uni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur, in particular judgements, and in precepts of manners which are not proposed to the whole Church, but to one or another people, he saies they may erre in the same Chap. but so may not Scripture, therefore can they not receive the vulgar edition absolutely, as the first Church did receive the Original Copies, so that either my Adversary hath overshot, or the Cardinal under; and if they will have nothing to do with him, that in any title importing Faith or Manners differ from them, then they have many to excommunicate on Munday Thursday, though they absolve them again on Good Friday, as they do the King of Spain for detaining part of St. Peters Patrimony.
And as for the other exception I made against the vulgar, by the varieties of the Edition of Sixtus 5tus and clement the 8th. he refers me to a Famous Book, called Charity maintained, written against Dr. Potter, See it Part 2. c. b. n. 3. as I take it in his Copy, but he saves me the labour, in telling me the effect of it thus, That, by Authentical testimonies of persons beyond all exception, is shewed (there) that the decree of Sixtus 5tus about his Edition was never promulgated, and that he had declared divers things to have crept in, which needed a second revew, and that the whole work should be re-examined though he could not do it, being prevented by death.
Ans. according to their principles, no Authentique testimony but of a Council confirm'd by the Pope, let them shew such: And then we say, Secondly, what if the decree of Sixtus 5tus was not promulg'd? was not this Sixtus 5tus's Edition? And it seems there was a decree for it, but not promulg'd, and the promulgation makes it but legible, the decree, I hope, makes it credible; the promulgation attends the binding of it in, actu exercito, but the [Page 848] decree attends the constitution of it, in actu signato. And was there no error in it because it was not promulgated? Or rather was not it therefore not promulgated because there was error in it?
Thirdly, the Authority of the Trent Council was ingaged, rather for this than for that of Clement the 8th▪ for the Trent Council, (as they know) speaks of it as in verbis de presenti, haec ipsa vetus & vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu, in ipsa ecclesiâ probata est, this very same old and vulgar edition, which by long use of so many ages is approved in the very Church, as if it had been so long before born, and now when it was of age, should be onely Christen'd.
Fourthly, How did divers things creep in which needed a second review? what, while the Church slept? then how can we believe the Church, in tradition and purity of Copies, for she may sleep while they are stolen or corrupted. Therefore have they no cause to triumph that Mr. Chillingworth hath said nothing to this point, in defence of Docter Potter, as they say, in the following words. For if the Citation be right [Part 2.] Mr. Chillingworth did not publish, for ought I knew, what he had against the second part. And he gives an account thereof, why he did not, in the latter end of his Answer to the 1 part p. 390. And therfore they did not ingenuously charge him with this omission, since it was forborne in the whole, upon ingenious reasons. And if they thinke to save themselves because Sixtus his decree was not published: surely Mr. Chillingworth may be excused, because the second Part of his Answer was not published, However he had said enough against the perfection of the Vulgar translation in his answer to the first part 77. Even upon the opinion of their own men, Lyranus, Cajetan, Pagini [...], Arias, Erasmus, Valla, Steuchus, who in many places have rejected it, and differed from it. And to these he adds the judgement of Vega (who was present at the Council [Page 849] and was instructed therein by the President of the Council, the Cardinal S. Cruce, as he saies) and of Dredo, and Mariana, who had the opinion of Laines in it, the General then of the society, and in a sort of Bellarmine also. But also if they might boast of not being answered in one point, then some body might boast that they have given Treaties for Answers. Lastly, will they be confident that the decree was not published for the authority of the vulgar edition? why then doth it go under the name of Sixtus 5us's Bible? yea also Dr. Iames, who hath written Bellum Papale to such a purpose, in his third part, 36. p. hath asserted that all the shifts they have made herein will not serve; For both Bull and Bibles are in many mens hands, whatsoever Gretser saith to the Contrary.
This Paragraph might have been spared,N. 37. and I might be excused surely for sparing it; it gives me a former reason why my two places out of St. Austin are not answered, he tells me that I have given him leave to have no more to do with the Fathers. This is his reason, and my reason is, because he will have more to do than he can do to answer them. We deny not a tryal by the Fathers though their Judgement be not infallible: and since we produce the Fathers for us, we are bound to answer them against us; as contrarily, if they produce them against us, they are bound to answer them against themselves, and this is a rule of Reason, Testem quem quis adducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se, the witness which one brings for himself, he is bound to receive against himself. And therefore whatsoever Coccius saies ad faciendum populum; we may, I think say well as Nilus did in his first book of Ecclesiastical dissentions, [...]. It is altogether absurd that those who have not the Fathers for their examples, should of themselves discern that which is better; and that we who have the Fathers should not so neither understand. So he, of the [Page 848] [...] [Page 849] [...] [Page 850] Romans also, so that my Adversary should not have stopt this gap, with an exception against my opposing of the Council of Ariminum to the Nicene Council towards proving the contradiction, and consequently the fallibility of Councils, but this he hath nothing new to say against; and therefore I have nothing to answer more then formerly, onely he chides me because I proposed the Council of Ariminum, as if it had been a lawful Council, and so would deceive the people which knoweth not which councils be lawful, which not, No? This spoyles all, infallibility is in Councils, the people do not know which are right councils, and those that are not right are not, and where then shall the people find their infallibility? where the way so plain that Fooles cannot err, as they have told us? It is better to be without a guide than to have one we cannot trust. So we bid the Roman people good night, and take our leaves of this number.
N. 38.But this also makes number, it comes in in form of a transition, and so let it pass.
N. 39.In this he begins to resume his discourse of such particulars which are necessary to Salvation, and yet not plainly set down in Scripture. And the first instance is about the necessity of the not working upon the Sunday without any necessity. But to this and to the other instances of this kind, it would be sufficient again to settle the state of the question; and it is thus, whether any thing necessary to salvation by necessity of mean, without the knowledge and belief whereof, in points of Faith, or without the knowledge and practise of in things of action we cannot come to salvation; is not with sufficient plainness set down in Scripture: This is the state of the question which very few if any of his instances come near to; there may be as errors, so sinnes, which are not clearly forbidden in Scripture: and therefore the ignorance of them will not damne where there is general repentance. And to hold and do any of these against [Page 851] our belief of the Truth therein, or duty, is acknowledged to be damnative without particular repentance; but this comes not up to the question, whether there is no possibility of salvation without the belief of the truths and the practise of the duties, for so neither of us could be saved, unless there be any of us who knows all truths reduplicatively, and do all duties also.
And this might have satisfied my Adversaries▪ for this and other examples; if it had became men pretending infalibility to receive any satisfaction but in victory.
But in particular, You dare not say that he shall be saved who doth weekly work, and resolveth to work upon the Sunday without any necessity. And what then? First let it be returned home, they dare not say that he shall be saved who resolves to be absent from high Mass without necessity. The point betwixt us is, whether necessarily he must be damned who doth work upon the Sunday, not knowing whether it be such a sin; when they determine this, then we may determine by Scripture which part is to be held, whether it is destructive of Salvation or not. But Secondly, as to the necessity towards Salvation, the intimations of honour which are put upon the first day of the week and the practise of the Apostles is sufficient to incline our practise on the safer hand, to wit, in the Negative; and if in contempt hereunto any should resolve to work without necessity, his case would be more dangerous: but the question concerns not sins in subjecto with all the circumstances, but in specie. Thirdly, as to the clear Text of the fourth Commandement, the determination of the day to the Jew was positive and Ceremonial, and therefore with other Jewish Ceremonies never to cease, or if that also was morall, why do we not heare of it by their infallibility and practise? And if this had been intended for a case reserved to make work for the authority of the Church, why was it not absolutely determined in some general Council? The Laodicean [Page 852] Council give not absolute order, but under a condition, [...]. Fourthly, Therefore to conclude this Number, whereas he saies I bring my own Discourses in stead of clear Texts, let him bring either clear Text or clear discourse for these two Propositions, 1. That this Point is absolutely necessary to be known: And 2. That it is not clearly set down in Scripture, then we shall leave him in the field for this time: but if he will not answer to my Discourses, because they are fallible, he gives me leave to think more, and to say no more to his Discourses upon the same account.
N. 40.In this Number he seems to be courteous, in receiving some satisfaction to my Answer about things strangled. But it may be he thought himself bound to it upon the general supposition of the Romanist, that the Scripture was written but for particular occasions, and to particular persons: and therefore that Precept of the Apostles in the 15 of the Acts concerning the case, should not upon their intention be alwaies binding. And yet I shall have nothing from him but I must pay for it: for he says, Though we seek for Texts and not Reasons. But reason upon Principles of Scripture binds by vertue of the Principles. If not, how many of their Superstructions must they discount. But let them give us Texts or Reasons; and until they do so, we may have done with them.
N. 41.Shall we have either in the next, Whether the King be Head of the Church: This hath been sufficiently spoken to before? what is new I shall touch upon. He saies, This controversie must highly import that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head by whom they are to be governed. To this we answer, Whatsoever is necessary in our sense, highly imports: but, whatsoever highly imports, is not necessary in our sense. Therefore, whereas he says afterwards, Is not this a necessary point? we deny it necessary in our sense; for then God should tie salvation to accidentals. It could not be necessary [Page 853] when and where there is no King, and this is to be numbred amongst accidentals: but those things which are absolutely necessary, do not vary their nature upon contingencies.
But then as to the other Proposition, which it is necessary for them to prove, namely, that this is not clearly enough delivered in Scripture, he says, reflecting upon our difference from our selves, as he supposeth, this point was before evident Scripture, now it is no longer evident Scripture. To this he brings in my Answer. Your Answer is first, What is infallibly decided by Scripture, will ever be so, although we do not alwaies finde it. To this he returns, If you mean what is infallibly decided by Scripture evident, is not alwaies to be found, it is manifestly false, &c. Answ. If it be decided infallibly by Scripture evident in terms, that which he says is true: but who holds this point so evidently decided? If he means it infallibly decided by evident Scripture in way of consequence, that which he says is manifestly false, is pertinent, but manifestly false. For how then could some Divines in the Trent Council assert many things to be decided by Principles of Scripture, which the adverse party there could not finde? And why do they hold, that the Determinations of Councils are Prophetical, that so they may be infallible; if what is discoursed out of Principles could alwaies appear to all to be infallible? And why doth Bellarmin say in his 1. b. de Baptismo, cap. 9. ad lit. B. that the Baptism of Infants, satis apertè colligitur ex Scripturis, ut supra ostendimus, the Baptism of Infants is clearly enough gathered out of Scriptures, as we have shewed before: although if my Adversaries were upon the Jury for this controversie they would bring in an Ignoramus.
Then he comes to my second Answer. You adde secondly, That you do not say every point is infallibly decided by Scripture, because it is not at all decided. Well, and what to this? Sir, is not this a necessary point? Answ. [Page 854] And is not this, in another mans expression, to be a begger of the question? Let them prove it to be necessary: but it seems rather by them, that it is not necessary. For since the Scripture doth not clearly decide it, as they suppose, therefore the Church should, because otherwise it will be wanting in things necessary where the Scripture doth not determine. Now if the Church hath determined for the last three of the first six hundred years. it hath determined against the Pope for Kings (not as we take them to be Heads of the Church, as they take the Pope to be Head, but) as Supreme Governours circa Sacra. And so the Church for that space, which is most considerable in this business, is against the Popes being Head of the Church, and the Scripture doth not declare it for him, as my Adversaries confess; for then it should declare by consequent negatively against Kings (as I have said before) and therefore, upon the whole matter, they have nothing for the Popes being Head. And then again, if the Scripture hath not declared for the Pope, it must be declarative sufficiently for the King; because no other pretends to be competitor; and this is their own argumentation. The Church must be infallible, no other Church pretends to infallibility but theirs; therefore so Government of the Church must be. The Scripture speaks of Government; they dare not say that the Scripture declares for the Pope; therefore, it must declare for Kings. Or, since all agreement is resolved into common Principles, let this difference be mediated by these four Propositions.
1. Government of the Church is necessary.
2. This Government must be in the Pope or the King.
3. The Scripture doth not declare for the Pope.
4. The Scripture declares all Points necessary; therefore it declares for the King. The three first Propositions they consent to. And the fourth is not yet disproved; therefore
This Paragraph is a supernumerary.N. 42. To make short work, we have no need of repetitions. But he will urge again S. Matthews Gospel, and again tax me for holding it no point of necessity to believe that it was S. Matthews. This, he saies my learned Brethren in Ratisbon durst not say. Plato's rule is good, [...], not so much who speaks, as what; yet this is necessary for us to believe, that it was written by one inspired, indefinitely. But it is not equally necessary for me to believe by whom: for then I cannot believe the Epistle to the Hebrews, because I cannot certainly believe it was written by Saint Paul. Again, my learned Brethren dared not deny it to be an Article of Faith. But first an Article of Faith may be taken largely for whatsoever is to be believed. Now though all Articles of Faith in a special sense are to be believed: yet all that is to be believed, is not in the sense of the question, an Article of Faith. But then secondly, Not to dare to deny it, is not to affirm it. One is a negative act: the other a positive. But a pari, if I must be bound to their opinion, why is not my Adversary bound to his learned Brethren in Ratisbon, who did not state infallibilities as my Adversaries do, with the necessity of a Council? And why do my Adversaries differ from Bellarmin, and others of their Brethren, who will be scandalized by them, because they dispute the Popes being Head of the Church from Scripture? for they would be loth to want the Authority of the Scripture for so capital a point, which concerns not many millions onely (as the other, and therefore it seems not absolutely necessary, because then it would concern absolutely all) but even all: for in Bellarmin's opinion, as in his Catechism, a Christian is defined by union to the Church under the Pope, as Head thereof.
As for his provoking me to believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew upon account of the Church, in this number also, by the Authority of S. Austin; I say onely, he might have [Page 856] been so modest as to have left this out until he had answered me in what I have said to that Testimony of Saint Austin at large before.
N. 43.Here he runs mightily upon a mistake, for what I spoke by way of supposition, he construes Categorically. I said, we might suppose more assistance (not assurance) to the Church in commending Books Canonical, than in other cases. He takes me to have spoken positively, as if God had given infallibility to the Church in this matter, though in none other; and therefore we are obliged to believe the Church in this absolutely. Whereas what I said comes to no more than what is usually said upon such cases, dato non concesso. And do not the Schoolmen dispute upon hypothetical questions? As if I should say, If the Pope were infallible in person, what need would there be of a Council? Or, if my Adversaries had a minde to be contented with common Principles of Christianity, we should soon have done. These Consequences are upon meer suppositions. So, if we were bound to receive the Canonical Books from the Church, we might suppose more assistance as to this than to other Points. Doth this affirm that the Church had infallible Assistance herein, and that we were to take the Books ultimately upon the Authority of the Church? Again, if we were to take the Books upon the account of the Church, what is this to the Roman Church? Is not the Universal Church of all times and places more credible than the Roman? The whole bears them, not they the whole. Nay, when he had abused my Supposition in p. 86. he doth acknowledge that I do not make belief of Scripture to depend upon the Authority of the Church.
So then my Adversary needs not to triumph and say, This spoils all, your onely shift, &c. He runs away with the line, but he will be hooked as well. My Adversary hath granted me, that the Scripture may be said to [Page 857] contain all things necessary, because it sendeth us to the Church, where we may have them. And may not I as well say to this, that this spoils all? may I not return him the fruit of his Discourse, mutatis mutandis? Will he grant that we have direction to the Church from Scripture? Then the onely shift they have to avoid our Position of the Scriptures containing all things necessary, is still to say that the Scripture sends us to the Church. And will they now suppose this most necessary point of all points, which is not clearly set down in Scripture to be admitted with infallible assent, upon the onely Authority of the Scripture? That we are universally to hear the Scripture, in things necessary to salvation, we have many pregnant places in Scripture, as hath been shewed: but that we are to learn this one point, 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 [Page 858] 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 [Page 859] 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 [Page 860] 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 [Page 861] 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 [Page 862] 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?
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 [Page 863] 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 S [...]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 hi [...] 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 [Page 864] 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 put me in minde again that I cannot credit it to be the Word of God by virtue of the Translation: since according to my opinion, Translations are onely so far Gods Word as they agree with the Originals: but we have onely Translations of S. Matthews Gospel, no Original at all. This we have in places before spoken to. But suppose no Original Copie of Saint Matthews Gospel: yet this makes no impossibility of belief in Stapletons judgement, because we may believe immediately without the interposal of the Church. And the Translation is considerable as an Instrument to represent the Object, not to help the Effect: it hath more relation to the fides quae, than the fides quâ, to the Faith objective rather than the Faith subjective. So that I do not believe the sense to be true for the Translation: but I beleve the Translation true because it agrees with the Sense. And he that made the Originall can Supply it. Again, they belive the Gospel of St Matthew. Do they not? how do they believe it? by the authority of the Church. Well, but what authority had the Church either operative or declarative, to make or declare that to be Scripture which was not Scripture? they say then, the Church can make translations, and particularly the vulgar latin to be authentique, but the vulgar is not absolutely authentique by confession of their own men. And besides the best reason which could be, had it been true of the vulgar, was this, that that should be authentique, because it was made by the original copies before they were corrupted. Yea, but my adversaries say, there was no original copie of St. Matthews Gospel: or if there was [Page 865] they are worthy to die, as David said of Abner because they have kept their Master no better. Are they now the Church unto which perfidia non potest habere accessum, no unfaithfulness can have access? Again, if there was not an original copie or no copie of the original, how shall we believe their Church to be infallible, since the chief place of strength for their Church is found in that Gospel, 16. Ch. 18. as Perron would think. Suppose the question then be made how they prove their infallibility by Scripture: answer is made, by the 16. of St. Matt. the 18. Well but we must know it first to be the word of God before they prove their Church infallible by it. Now they are at as great a loss as we, for they cannot prove that Text to be the word of God by the infallibility of the Church, because the infallibility of the Church is in question, if that be not before hand assured to us that it is the word of God. If then at length they have a mind to rest themselves in common argumentative principles, and resolve their perswasion of it to be the word of God upon the credit of universal tradition; so do we, as to this kind of perswasion.
Whereas then they say, It is uncertain who the Translator was, and of what skill and honesty, we answer, this makes more against them. For if a Divine Faith be necessary, as they mightily assert, then it is reason that we should less relie upon humane arguments, which make but humane faith: and therefore for our private assurance, should believe it upon Gods own authority.
To that they say, If there were one Hebrew Copie, then (in St. Ierom's time) what is that to our purpose now? I answer first, that this may abate their confidence of an absolute negative. 2. If those of Beraea did gratifie St. Ierom with the use of that Hebrew Copy, it is very probable that as the former Beraeans were diligent in searching the Scriptures whether those things spoken by St. Paul were true, so those would take care to consign it [...]o [Page 866] posterity, if there was but that one copie thereof. 3. If he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans to describe it (as before) then surely of that Autograph, St. Ierome would have made an Apograph, he would have made another copy. And 4. If the translation they so much brag of were his, they know what skill and honesty the Translator was of. So then they are brought to this either to take my answer, or to deny their translation, which they will. And all their shifts will not help them.
N. 47.Here he would put me out of my shifts, as he calls them. I asked them, how they were sure of their latin interpretation to be authentique: they say now by tradition of former ages. Well, but we are satisfied thus also by way of argument concerning the Scriptures and in particular concerning the Gospel of St. Matthew. We say also that we are infallibly satisfied herein by the Spirit of God. And this way of faith I hope we may assert. we may believe what we cannot prove; as they believe that Roman Faith which they cannot prove.
But he saies we are incapacitated to make use of tradition, This tradition doth not cert [...]fie you, because you hold it fallible. So then: Crede quod habes & habes, Is this a sufficient argumentation? And so consequently, it is infallible to you, because you hold it infallible. So it must it seems be. You do not hold it because it is infallible: but it is infallible because you hold it. And thus infallibility shall not make faith: but opinion shall make infallibility. I had thought before, that verity had been fundamentally in things, and that things had not been true because we conceive them so, but our conceits had been true because things are so. Surely it is a better argument that the Roman Faith cannot be certified to them, because their principles are uncertain, as hath been shewed, then that tradition cannot certifie us, because we hold it fallible. If it be infallible, we are as sure as they, in the certitude of the object; though because we think it fallible, [Page 867] we are not certain certitudine subjecti, in the certitude of the subject, valeat quantum valere potest. And why would they have us sure of our faith in the certainty of the subject, and yet scarce allow a certainty of salvation in the certitude of the object? But then 2. They are sure by the tradition of former ages, namely universal tradition they mean, do they not? if so universal traditition includes all places, then how comes infallibility to be the prerogative of their Church, when they are to prove their faith by universal tradition. 3. It seems they do not hold tradition to be infallible (and therefore by their own argument, it cannot certifie them) since that which was held in the Church universally for the first ages, they do not now hold, as they have been told, namely the millenary opinion, infant communion, standing up in prayer from Easter to Whitsuntide. Yea why do they not stand up altogether at prayer as was appointed by a Council? [...]. 4. If they mean the terme [certifie] as infallibly, we grant it: if they mean it morally, we deny it: and therefore if they have no more certainty then of tradition for their faith, they have no faith of proper name. 5. We are upon the surer ground to trust upon the Scripture, because the Church must be subordinate to it, then they, because they trust to the Church for the truth of Scripture. For if this were right then the Church might have that priviledge, which St. Paul could not claim to himself, namely to be mistress of our faith: whereas St. Paul denies it 2. Ep. Cor. 1.24. Not as Masters of your Faith, but helpers of your joy. And we have Estius also of our opinion, as before, that all faith hath not the authority of the Church for the formal reason thereof, this is enough against his first shift, the second shift is, this Gospel might possibly at the first be written in Greek, and here he asks me whether possibilities grounded upon conjectures be sufficient to ground an infallible assent. [Page 868] We answer, no, but exceptions of a possibility of error are sufficient to contradict infallibility. They say they have an infallible faith; we say there is a possibility of error herein: and this is enough for us against them. And then 2. This weapon we use against you, Possibilities grounded upon conjectures are not sufficient to ground an infallible assent: This it seems is their own position, now they have nothing but possibilities for them; therefore they have no infallible assent. This assumption hath been proved before upon their own principles. We have nothing but possibilities grounded upon conjectures, that they have a right Pope, legitimate in his Baptisme and priesthood; and so of other Priests, there might be want of due matter, due form, due intention; which with them make the act null.
But then he compares the inevidence of St. Matthews Gospel to be the uncorrupted word of God, with the evidence of St. Lukes Gospel to be such by its own light, and would have me think as much reason to believe the inevidence of the latter, as I doe of the former, but 1. he doth not rightly to compare the evidence of St. Lukes Gospel with the inevidence of St. Matthew's as he would have me graunt. As if because I supposed an inevidence which was the original, I also graunted an inevidence of the Gospel, and yet faith doth not exclude a negative inevidence, there may be certitude of assent without evidence of the object, therefore we say 2. We are rather assured of the language by the Scripture, then of the Scripture by the language, otherwise the ignorant people could have no faith of Scripture. 3. We can give, upon our own principles, as much credit to the Church (as to the point of the originall language) as the Church can require or they prove. 4. How did the Church first accept it to be the word of God, whether the Greek was the originall or not. By the internall testimonie of the spirit, it must be said. For if it should be said we [Page 869] receive now by tradition of former ages, this is forecluded, because we ask the question how the first Church accepted it, if not by the spirit of God internally assuring them, then let them tell us how they came to the faith thereof, not opinion: if so, then why may we not receive it so too. And moreover, it doth not follow that if the Gospel of St. Matthew were originally greek, therefore we should see it to be so as well as St. Luke? A posse ad esse non valet. Multa videntur quae non sunt: multa sunt quae non videntur. Many things seem which are not: many things are which are not seen. Every irradiated understanding of theirs doth not see all points which belong to their Church. Some do see the Monarchie of the Church to be as Bellarmin: some do not see the Monarchy of the Church, as Spalatensis notes. Again, how came it to pass that the former Churches did not see the Apocryphal books to be Gods true and uncorrupted word: and yet some Church of later times hath seen them? such answers of mine would be repetitions; were they not answers to his repetitions.
Nextly he comes to my argument (which I did not make much of, but he less) that the Gospel of St. Matt. was written in Greek, because the Greek copie doth interpret the word Immanuel, which if it were written in Hebrew, needed not any interpretation. But my Adversary might have added, if he had pleased, that which followes in my Paper [since the letters of the word put together without any variation do make that signification] And this we called not a demonstration, nor a probability, but rather a possibility by that reason. And therefore unless he did make all things invincible by infallibility, he needed not to have called it a pittiful weak conjecture. Well, but what said he? [...].
He answers then, it is manifest that translations of Scripture usually tell us the Hebrew word first, and then the translation of it, so Gen. Bi. 48. Galaad id est tumulus testis. [Page 870] Not to take any notice of the Scribe; he puts here that in the way of interpretation, which is there delivered in way of a cause, and reason of the terme. Ver. 47. but Iacob called it Galeed; then 48. for Laban said this heap is witness between me and thee this day, therefore he called the name of it Galeed. And before the name which Laban gave it in Chaldee, Segar Sahudatha, is not there interpreted, although there be a little difference between that and the name which Iacob gave it in Hebrew: for Galeed signifies the heap of witnes, the other heap his witnes. Therefore whereas he would make [Galaad, id est tumulus testis] to be in termes Scripture, it is not so. No m re is that of Exodus 12. Phas [...] id est transitus. It is not said so there, but there is a reason given why they should [...]at it in haste, for it is the Lords Passeover, ver. 11. the reason is given before, which is contrary to what he saies, that it is usual to put the Hebrew words first, and then the translation of it: but here is the reason before, and no formal interpretation. Ratio nominis, I hope, is different from an interpretation. Another instance (and indeed in order before the last) is Gen. 35.18. Benoni i.e. filius doloris mei, Benjamin id filius dextrae. But here also he presumptuously supposeth his vulgar latin to be Scripture, which is to suppose that which is not to be supposed; and indeed a sophism in begging that which is in question: none of all languages which the great Bible set out with us hath, doth put in these words in form of an exposition. The Syria [...]k and the Arabick and the Greek doe express the matter of the interpretation; but then they leave out the name Benoni: but all keep Benjamin without any interpretation. Another instance of his is Exod. 16.15, 31. Manna quod sign ficat quid est hoc. And here again he takes the vulgar Latin for good Scripture: for none give the terme and afterwards t [...]e signification but the Latin: but the name Manna they do not name. And whether that be the signification of Manna deserves a criticism. Some think [Page 871] that it may come from the Hebrew [...]; and so it should signifie a portion; neither is Bethel interpreted upon the place, Gen. 35.15.
So then, upon the whole matter, that which he confidently saies being not so in his own Instances and more, my conjecture is yet true and good; unless they can make the Latine Translation to be as Catholique Scripture as they would have the Pope to be universal Bishop. And surely if a Translator of Scripture doth translate words of Scripture (where the words are not interpreted in Scripture) he is not a Translator of Scripture, quoad hoc, formally, but materially of that which is Scripture. And this is not to render Scripture so much as to make it. And moreover they may know this to be the usage of the Evangelists besides (which are acknowledged to have written originally in Greek) to give the Interpretation of the Hebrew or Syriack words. My conjecture then is well recovered of its weakness.
But then he falls upon me for giving a contradiction to S. Ierom. Though he saith he did see a copie of the Hebrew Original with his own eyes: you reject him though all the Fathers Writings extant stand on his side.
Answ. A conjecture of a possibility of the contrary makes no such contradiction which stands betwixt affirmation and negation categorically. 2. S. Ierom then hath rather contradicted them, if a conjecture be sufficient to a contradiction. For can we conceive that there is not room enough for a conjecture, that either that Copie which S. Ierom had use of, or that which he described (which may be as certain as some other) may now be extant in the world; which contradicts my Adversary. 3. If there were an Hebrew Copie, it is more than a conjecture, it is more than probable that he who translated it into Greek, did exactly compare it with the Hebrew, whose faithfulness, in those times, we might better trust than some Romans now. And also they know that [Page 872] the Pope may be deceived in point of fact. Neither did all the Fathers, I suppose, see the Hebrew Copie. And it would have been enough, that none of the Fathers are against it: but it is a greater adventure to say, all the Fathers stand on that side. And also they may know what Father did profess that he did see the remainers of those cells, in which the Seventy did translate the Old Testament, and who contemns that testimony. I think I bear as much respect to the Fathers, as some of the Romanists do, or more: but yet if I should hold with the Romans against the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome was the universal Bishop, I should not be blamed for contradicting the Fathers.
But to his Argument, This Copie translateth, ergo, it is a translation. Answ. T [...]e Antecedent begs the question, whether it doth translate or not. Whatsoever doth interpret doth not translate. And therefore here is an Argument for me, It doth not translate, ergo, it is not a Translation. And it doth not translate: for then the Interpretation must be in the Hebrew, which is denied to have been the use of the Hebrews, as before; especially in the same case, where the name is given in the same letters which signifie the interpretation. Therefore the Latine doth not translate, when it giveth the Interpretation, as in the former examples. And the other Evangelists are not Translators, when they interpret Hebrew or Syriack words. So his Argument is for me. And so my cause is not lost, as to this point: since also S. Austin professed in that of his against the Epistle of the Manichean, that he would hear Reason against Antiquity: at least surely he might do so in matter of fact.
Your third shift is in place of giving answer to make an objection, asking why our Latine Translation was made authentique, if the Church had made the Greek authentique. Answ. Shall I say that my Adversary doth not seem here to know well what shift to make: since he carps at my [Page 873] answering by way of question? But then they should be better advised than to make such Arguments as they will not be willing to answer an intergatory about in the same matter. But he saies (passing by some other words which seem too hot for him) I know of no body who told you that the Greek Translation was made authentique by the Church. I return upon him. Was the Greek Translation made authentique or not? He is not willing to say it was nor it was not. But I press them. Was it? or was it not? If it was not, then their Translation was not of authentique Scripture: and so, again, they do not translate but make Scripture. If it was made authentique by the Church, then what need of two authentique Translations? Again, if it were not made authentique by the Church, then the Church could be without the authentique Gospel of Saint Matthew, and yet have enough for salvation: and therefore can we be as well without Traditions of the Church, because I presume they profess so much reverence to the Gospel of S. Matthew, that they will not say that Traditions are more necessary than the Gospel of S. Matthew. And if it were made authentique absolutely by the Church: we can better believe it by the vertue of Universal Tradition, than they can believe their Latine by the authority of the Roman Church. And if it be necessary, as it is, that Translations, as such, should agree with Originals, and the question be which is the Original, or where the Original is to be found, they are in as great difficulty as we: for then they have no certainty of an Original, as to this Gospel, to make use of for their Translation. And if their Latine, as to this, was a Translation of a Translation: we have the better cause in this, because we trust rather to the first Translation. And if some part of the Church made use of the Septuagints Translation in stead of the Hebrew, and the Pen-men of the New Testament made so much use of it also, as is confessed by learned men; then may we rather make use [Page 875] of the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Greek than they in Latine.
Your fourth shift is to pretend to this knowledge by the harmony with other Gospels. Ans. A great deal he saies to this, which I might spare the refutation of upon these reasons. First, because I compare the harmony of this Gospel to the other Gospels, with the credit of the Church, therefore do I not make this to be an Argument absolute. 2. Because I spoke of the harmony betwixt this and other Gospels, and not betwixt this Gospel and other parts of scripture: and therefore he playes the Sophister, the discourse is [...]. whereas then he does deny my Argument by compare of it with other Gospels, he does not contradict me in my conclusion, which was comparative to the credit of the Church. And where he compares the harmonie of this Cospel with other parts of Scripture, he doth not conclude contradictorily to me, who onely instituted the compare of it with other Gospels. It is necessary therfore to set down my words, which were these. ‘Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade faith than the credit of the Church.’ So that all his disputation as to this is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench, because it comes not up to a contradiction to my terms. And besides, if the difficulties about the agreement, were so great, their infallibility pretended should have cleared them. Either we might have saving health notwithstanding those breaches, or else the plaister was defective, or else there is want of care in the Physitian. Or it may be as he said, Plus periculi a medico qua [...] a morbo, but let them take my own termes in their ordinary sence, and then his assaults will lose their force before they come home to the point. For what if one who intended a supposititious Gospel would take care not to contradict the others? Is not therefore the harmonie of this Gospel with others a better perswasive than the credit of the [Page 874] Church? For the Argument from the Church is more extrinsical, and such Arguments are in kind less rational. And if they say the Church hath an infallible assistance, it beggs the question.
And what infringement of the harmony is it, if there be many things related by St. Matthew, and not related at all by many others? For so, they would not find an harmony of the other Gospels: and this according to Mr. Cressy would make this Gospel more credible, because more things are here expressed, and it may be some material. But surely to relate circumstances and not to relate circumstances, namely the same, makes no contradiction in diverse subjects, if one did say these circumstances were, and another did say these circumstances were not, this would contradict: but not to say, is not to say not. For not to say is negative ex parte actus: but to say not, is negative ex parte objecti, which makes the contradiction in diverse subjects. Again what if there seem to be any variety betwixt the Gospel of St. Matthew and other parts of Scripture (he should have said and other Gospels, if he would have spoken ad idem) in the History of the generations, must Faustus the Manichaean be gratified in honour to the Roman Church. If there be any such variety, the Roman will have the worst of it: for his foundation lies principally in that Gospel. And this cannot be salved by the Church, because the Church is in question.
But he will not spare the Gospel of St. Matthew (as if the Roman Church needed it not) and therefore he tells us of a disagreement in the first chap. of St. Matthew's Gospel with the 2. b. of the Kings the 8th. ch. about Ioram's begetting Ozias, Ioram begat Ozias, &c. Well, if the Roman calls children Nephews, more reasonably may the Hebrews call real Nephews children, which are as minor sons, as he said. And so Ioram might be said [Page 876] to beg [...]t Ozias, who was his Abnepos. Or will not Salmerons conceit please them▪ that this was so ordered in an allegory, to typifie that as 3 Kings are excluded in the History, so those that deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and deprive themselves of the three Theological vertues do deserve to be excluded salvation. But since, it seems it was the spirit of Gods purpose to put the account in tessarodecades, it was necessary that in one of them, three should be left out. And convenient it was that the omission should be in the second, that so that curse upon Ahabs family should be here exemplified, those three Kings being of his posterity: somewhat as Dan in the seventh of the Revel. is not numbred; because that Tribe did go away from God in Idolatry, and did mingle with the Gentiles, as is observed.
Another difficultie he urgeth about the number of the Generations, wherein one seems to be wanting, you shall finde them to be only fortie one; which by the account of thrice fourteen Generations should make fortie two. Ans. Our question is about the harmonie of the Gospel in the point of doctrine cheifly, this concerns historie of fact, 2. We have no reason to thinke that because we cannot comprehend all the mysteries in scripture and the waies of the jewish acount, there should be any falsitie herein. Tertullians' rule is good, Cedat Curiositas fidei. 3. Stapulensis, it seems, said that in old copies it is found thus, Iosias genuit Ioaechim; Ioaechim genuit Iechoniam and these two are comprehended under one name. Since Iechonias is called Iehoiachin 4o Regum ch. 24 ver. 6. whose father Iehoiachin was; the father and the sonne are confounded by the similitude of the names in the greek, as some note,
Another difficultie he urgeth about the 27 of St. Matthew ver. 9. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet Ieremie; whereas the Prophet Ieremie hath no such matter in him. What harmonie appeareth here? indeed in the [Page 877] Prophet Zechary: there is in substance what St. Matthew said. Ans. An errour of the scribe cannot discanonize the book in a point of circumstance, if it were so as it might be, if the Gospel was first written in Hebrew? for then [...] might easily be read for [...] by Ier in short and for Ieremie for by the hand, namely of the Prophet, which is the usuall form of expression in this kind. And also the Syriack expresseth it in the same manner [...] by the hand of the Prophet. Or it may be 2. As some note, they were wont to put severall books together, and to name all by the first. So Ieremie being first all were reckoned by him: and so that which is said by Zecharie is attributed to Ieremie too being the first. And so we know that in the old Testament books are called by the first words [...] And 3. However this agrees with the Scripture in generall, though not particularly in termes with Ieremie. His other exceptions are about the difference of St. Peter's denying his master, which compared with other Evangelists, seemes to differ in very many Circumstances; and then also in the last chap. He saies there are some Circumstances about the resurrection, which St. Matthew differs from the rest in: Ans. These are spoken by him in generall, and Generalia non agunt as it is said, neither do they make an action. And then 2. Somewhat may be diverse which is not adverse. And what one sayes another doth not denie. If another omission did make a contradiction to what one affirmes, then, if St. Ierom had called the Bishop of Rome the universall Bishop, (which yet he doth not) then St. Austin, not calling him so, had contradicted him. But then the supposed differences are about Circumstances, by his own confession. What is this to matter of faith in necessary doctrine; which is the center point of the question, unto which all the lines should be referred, and therfore he had done nothing, if he had done more in this kinde. And I [Page 879] thinke we are as sure of the right in such varieties as they. And also he might have remembred that rule of Saint Cyrill of Jerusalem [...] let things of curiositie not be spoken of in the Church.
But the sense of them is, that we must be Papists or no Christians. But if they were Turks we might say more. And where nothing is necessarie, any thing is abundant.
He comes next to my last shift, as he calleth it, that the people doe fix their faith upon that which is interpreted, not upon the interpretation. To this he objects thus, you may fix your faith upon a lie, for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the interpreter, be Gods word or the interpreters own word, specially when we know not who this interpreter was, how skilful, how faithful, how true a copie he used. Ans. To the confirmation of what he here objects against, were added distinct reasons or reasonable distinctions. These he saies nothing to, but what cavil he can make against the conclusion; he is willing to, without answer to my reasons, 2. We believe that our people can better believe the word of God in a translation, than their people without a translation, for the people must believe their Church without the knowledge of any translation. Let them make their faith good without a translation: and we shall make our faith as good in a translation. And I think our people may as well credit the Authority of our Church in a translation as their people may credit the Authority of their Church without a translation. 3. By their own Argument they are more in the dark: for if the perswasive of our faith be the certainty, who this interpreter was, how skilful, how faithful, how true a copy he used: because they do not know who the interpreter of St. Matthews Gospel was into Greek, how skilful, how faithful, how true a copy he used, how can they believe it? And therefore we return [Page 878] him his own words, how know you that this translation doth not conveigh their own fansies in the place of Gods word. Do they know it because their fansie (of their Church) tells them that this is Gods word? Thus then they may have a double phantastical assurance and nothing else. This they are forced to hold sufficient. Yet how doth this agree with their own acknowledgements, that the vulgar latin as to this is also a translation: and yet, (as they must confess) that it is so far a true translation as it doth agree with the original. They cannot resolve their faith into the original never proposed to them. Into the translation they say they do resolve it. And this must be the written word. What written word is that which is neither translation nor original? For the Greek is neither their translation nor their original. And yet surely the Greek is more like to be the original than the latin: for if there was no Hebrew copie extant, as they say, then was the Latin a translation out of the Greek. And if they say the Greek was not the original then the Latin is a translation without an original, which is oppositum in apposito. So then, when all comes to all, we are as well setled in the tenure of our assurance, as to the Gospel of St. Matthew, as they, or more; because we stand to that which they have but a translation of. And they have but the Latin Church for their Latin: we have the universal Church for the Greek. But forsooth, they believe their Church to be infallible: we do not believe the Church to be infallible. But what then? if the authority of the Church were crescent according to the opinion of the recipient, then the Scripture had not been the word of God unless men had thought so. And then opinion would make faith: because it would make infallibility. As then they must say that their Church was assured by the Holy Ghost (for so the termes of their Synod run, Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica & generalis Synodus in spiritu sancto legitime congregata) that their Latin translation i [...], if it be at all, authentique: so may we ultimately [Page 880] believe the Gospel of St. Matthew to be in the matter of it, authentique. For if there be not sufficient assistance of the spirit of God to Christians severally, as to necessity of Salvation, how did the Christians do before there was ever a general Council?
What is added hereabouts might have been spoken without Sarcasmes, or might have been left out. We can know which of those so many Greek Copies is the onely true one as well as they. And a clown will be as able to understand which is the best English Translation (as if there were such difference) as well as with them he can understand which is a right General Council, or which was in the right as to the varieties in the Latine, Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth. And though they cannot confer the Translation with the Original; No more can the Roman People compare their Translation with the Originals: and yet Bellarmine, as before, saies in some cases, we must have recourse to the Originals. But did not Xavier convert the Infidels? yes, they will say. So then. And did he not preach that which is in the Bible? Yes, they will say. And did not they believe? Yes, they will say. Now then how was this Faith wrought in them? By the Spirit of God, they will say, or they must say. For they could not compare that which was said by him with the Originals or with the Doctrine of the Church. So then our people can believe without conferring a Translation with the Originals, as well as theirs. And they know who said, Si fides in doctos selos caderet, nihil esset pauperius Deo. And again, Surgunt indocti & rapiunt coelum, &c. as the Father. The very neck then of this point may be thus resolved. In the order of credibles their first Proposition is, The Church is infallible. Our first Proposition is, The Scripture is the Word of God. Now their Proposition is grounded in Authority: or else is believed by its own light. Not by its own light; for then the Scripture may be believed so, which they deny. Then it [Page 881] is grounded in Authority. That, either Humane or Divine. Humane Authority cannot make Faith. No Divine Authority, but either that of Scripture; or internal, by the Holy Ghost. Not by Scripture, then that Proposition of theirs is not the first. Then by the Holy Ghost: and then by the same way we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, as they believe the Church to be infallible. And so they must at length rest in our Principles.
In this num. (beside somewhat in the beginning,N. 48. answered before) he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin, which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15. where it reads ipsa for ipsum; referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son. To this he saies, It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum. How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copie? Satis caute. Some copies. Not all. May be. Not are. Most exactly be translated, not some most exact copies. Well. Are not these copies the greater number? And indeed are they not the most exact? yea can they truly be translated otherwise? and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copie? If it did not follow it infallibly; or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly, infallibly they are undone; because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church. Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question; they cannot settle their foundation by their question. And yet we have another question. He asks again, How many most grave and most antient Fathers have also read ipsa? Surely he does well to ask how many, because he does not know how few. Their names may they not be written in a nut shel? and Bellarmin, upon the place, hath not many for it. And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers. But as for St. Austin, Bellarmin, might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue. For though he renders it, [Page 882] ipsa, in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place; yet he doth not expound it, as they of the Virgin, for he makes it to be mystically understood. Significatur semine diaboli perversa, semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis: & illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat. He might also have omitted St. Ambrose, in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally, not referring it to the Virgin. And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words, and follow the Septuagint. For they translate it, ipsa servabit caput tuum, which doth not agree with the Hebrew, with which the vulgar, in this, doth agree. But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them. For in three places of this homily, he renders it [...], according to the septuagint, [...]. That which he would think, it may be, to be for this use, is this, [...]. And not her alone (the woman) but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed. Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoyne the text, as before. [...]. Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring [...]. indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach. For S. Ierom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named. And he saies, melius in Hebraeo, ipse conteret caput tuum. Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him, saith he had seen one copy (he speaks of no more, as he would surely if he had could) and yet doth not tell us where. So that, to speak at least de communi and [...], this reading ipsa; is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies. Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it; and therefore saies some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse, in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the [Page 883] infallibility of the Church in both. The Church was deceived in one, and where then is their infallibility they speak of? This is their modesty then, against the gender in the Hebrew, against the Samaritan, Syriack, Arabick, translations, which referre it to the seed, against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one, against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin, to make that Scripture for the Creature, which belongs to the Son of God.
And also whether the Fathers most grave and most antient are for their interpretation, we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary: And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis, who saies as much as Chemnitius in this point, almost all the Fathers do read ipse, as is noted. Let me then say, it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately, and to confess this fault.
And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him, why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin. That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners, this he saies: but this will not serve, as may appear thus. A translation of that which is not authentique cannot be authentique; now let them determine whether it was made authentique or not. If not made authentique, being a translation (as they say) then how can the Latin be so declared an authentique translation? for then the Church must have vim operativam too, not onely declaratory: and the effect shall exceed the material cause. Or if it was declared authentique, what of an infallible translation. 2. Whereas he saies therefore it is not deficient in any point necessarie to faith and manners. To wit the Latin translation, we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use; namely not to be understood absolutely, as if there were [Page 884] no error at all therein: but restrictively, specificatively, no such errour but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners. So then, when he hath made use of his own words for his own turne, we will make use of them for our purpose, and we will not squeese them neither.
The first corollarie then from these words of his, is this, that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibilitie of the Church in every point whatsoever: and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of it's being the ground and cause of faith. 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners. 3. It semes then salvation is not in danger by some errours: otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessarie to faith and manners; and therefore we need not, upon danger of salvation, have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent. 4. Things necessarie to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture, for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient; or else it must have more then the orignal; and then, as to this, it is not a translation yet 5. Then necessitie of traditions is excluded, for then it could not be truely said that the Latin Bible is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners. 6. Exceptions against St. Matthew's Gospel, which are not in points necessarie to faith and manners, do not hinder the authentickness of the Greek; because the Latin is authentick as not being deficient in points necessarie to faith and manners. 7. We may infer from hence thus, those errours in the Latin Bible, though not material to faith or manners, might have been saved by the Church or not: if they might have been saved, then the Church may deceive our trust, if they could not then it may be deceived: and so we have but a fallible ground for our assent to any of her definitions [Page 885] and in particular, for the Gospel of St. Matthew. So that all his shifts fail him in this important point. Surely this whole point about the belief of Scripture to be the word of God, was a great shift of his: for the subject should have been supposed in the dispute of the attributes. The point in question was whether the Scripture doth clearly propound things necessary to Faith and manners. And he hath blotted how much Paper to debate our tenure of the Scripture. Yet it may be, he hath gotten nothing by it, nor by the Holy Fathers, whom he hath somewhat to say to onely for himself.
The greatest part of this Paragraph comes too late. And all that would seem to take away my former Answers, is taken away. My Answer to his Exception, that Luther did not see the Apocalyps and the Epistle of Saint Iames to be canonical, is yet sufficient; that the negative Argument doth not conclude. He replies, in our case it is a strong proof. I again deny the Consequence. The objects have themselves equally to all: but they are not equally seen; surely not in this case, because the Spirit of God is a free Agent. Yea Saint Luke the 24.16. their eyes were holden that they could not see him. Gods actings upon objects, and in degrees, are at his own pleasure. And secondly, The sense of the definitions of the Church is visible, is it not? If not, how are we guided? If so, yet every one doth not see them. And thirdly, If Luther had such an irradiated understanding, why did he not yet see, and Spalatensis also, the Monarchy of the Church to be of Divine Right? if he had not, why doth he say so? The light is the same, the Proposition is the same: his eyes or understanding no better nor more assisted, why then did not they see what he sees?
As to his Answer to my second Answer [you see we do not follow him (Luther) blindly] we need not return any thing but this, that he mistakes me in the terme [blindly] he supposeth me to speak as in relation to this [Page 886] point about the Books denied or doubted of by him: but I spoke it in general, that we do not follow him with blinde obedience as the Jesuites do their General.
And though the Apocalyps and other Books were doubted of, this doth not prejudice us, no more than it doth them for the visibility of the Church, and the reception of the Books Apocryphal, These Books were received by them because they were worthy to be received or not; but arbitrarily. If the former, why did not those before see them to be such? If the latter, then infallibility proceeds by the will: and so infallibility may be on either part of the contradiction. And so we have no reason to say any more, if whatsoever they will say, is infallible.
Further he chargeth us with obtruding a Canon of our own coyning for Iudge of controversies. Here is two things false, First, That we obtrude a new Canon. This not so, we have the same Canon which the ancient Fathers had before the Council of Carthage. But they have made a new Canon, by taking in the Apocryphal: and by canonizing the vulgar Latine. And the other is false; for we do not obtrude the Scripture, as Judge of controversies in any formal sense.
And again he would mar the Canon, all agreeing that divers Books of the true Canon be quite lost. How often comes this in? But first, He must go less: not divers Books, which may import many. One or two are not in common account divers. If then he means by [divers] many Books, so all do not agree. If he means one or two, so not divers. Secondly, He takes the termes [the true Canon] either respectively to those Divine Books which were inspired, and yet never put into the Canon, as it was reveiwed by S. Iohn, as learned men suppose: or after they were put in and acknowledged: If the former, he cannot say that we have not a true and just Canon as to that which is necessary. And if he denies it, he is a [Page 887] friend to Celaeus, Porphyrie and Iulian. But if the latter, then who lost them? Surely those who had the minde to keep the reputation of the necessary use of Traditions upon this account. But if Traditions be but as necessary (as the Trent Council intends in those terms pari pietatis affectu) why may we not think that some of these may be lost also? and then where shall we finde the Iudge, who is to determine of points by the tenure of Traditions; or else some of their most acute and learned men have lost their insight into ground of truth?
Amongst us (after the Church's declaration was notified concerning any book for canonical) you will never finde it to be doubted of by any true Catholick. Ans. This argument concludes (if true) unity, but not truth. Things of Divinity are not to be measured by such a Lesbian rule.
And this agreement cannot prove their Canon good, for unles the Canon was good, the agreement was not good. 2. If we should bring things of debate to no other test, we should never have any determination. for what is there which is not questioned by some of them? Now it is all one to the Romanists, whether the Canon be questioned or any thing else which the Church proposeth, since they are bound to believe all alike: but to the point in question. Gregory was a true Catholike. Gregory did not hold the Book of Machabees to be canonical, after declaration by the Council of Carthage; therefore that which he saies is false. The major was commended to them before the assumption, they may see in the 19. of his Morals the 15. Ch. Therefore they had best hold the Book of Machabees to be Canonical onely so as to be read in Churches. And if so onely (as Saint. Ierom also held) then this book is not simply canonical: if otherwise, that which he saies is not true; and Gregory was not of their opinion. So then we have ‘—Pares Aquilas & pila minantia pilis,’
Pope against Pope; infallibility against infallibility. [Page 888] And since we know which is right, we must deny both.
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 [Page 890] 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 [Page 891] 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 [Page 892] 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 [Page 893] 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. [Page 894] 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 merit, it would be more meritorious to do that which is more meritorious without knowledge of it to be such, because then they do it more free from intention of more merit 2. If the distinction of a command be simply difficult, as to the negative, whether it be a command or not; the omission of it is not, without all hope, damnative where there is general repentance.
And now to the counsels he saies, in clearing this my teeth bite St. Paul, who expresly supposeth with me that there is counsels of perfection above things of command. And he names the 1 Ep. to the Cor. 7.25. and 38. And then he saith How doth this agree with your strange Divinity? We answer, very well with our Divinity which is not so strange as true. First they are too forward in the catching at the word [Page 895] Counsel, [I give my counsel] it is [...]. now surely, there is no great criticism in the difference betwixt [...] and [...]. The former is a grave and wise opinion or sentence, not a councel in the Roman sense. Or if it were taken for an advice; every advise of the Apostle was not a pontifician counsel. For this advice he might give them not out of any command from God, but upon his private judgement: and therefore it doth not ground the doctrine of perfection in the observation of Counsels above the Law. Secondly, as it is noted, this is not delivered to all promiscuously as the counsels are, but to those who had the gift of continency as ver. 7. which gift is not given to every one as Faith Hope and Charity, because this gift of continency is not necessary to salvation, in the confession of our adversaries, as the other graces are, but to perfection of state or state of perfection. Thirdly this is not given absolutely for time, but with restriction of time, as, in the 26. ver. [...],, for the present necessity in the times of persecution, and he saies here [...], I suppose: so that he spake not this by inspiration, it seems. Fourthly, the matter of counsel is more difficult than that of ordinary obedience. Yes they will say, for otherwise how should they thereby supererogate and make the state of perfection? and yet to serve God then in those times in the married condition was more difficult, as being under more temptations for their family. Fiftly as to the 38. ver. it is not necessary to construe well and better, de bono morali, but de bono commodo, in respect to those times. As goodness is grounded in convenience, so it was more good, not to give in marriage, for those times. And here is all that Text can afford him. As for his Syllogisme therefore, there is no great force in it. According to you he is bound to do all that he can do: but he could do better in not giving her in marriage, therefore according to you was he bound not to give her under pain of damnation. Ans. As for the Major, it is not any other than the proposition of Christ, but [Page 896] my adversary should have put in here what he puts in the conclusion, namely [under pain of damnation] and then it might have been denied: for God accepts that which is done in sincerity and true charity, though it be not all that we can do, let him or rhem then put those words into the Major proposition and we can then deny it: if not, there is more in the conclusion than in the premises. Then to the minor we say, first better is not necessary to be taken absolutely but with respect to those ends which are spoken of in the Ch. and therefore is it to be understood, as is observed, not comparatively to the performance of commands, but comparatively to the opposite, to marriage; As Gerson is quoted, cum consilia dicuntur esse de meliort bono, non fit comparatio eorum ad praecepta, sed ad sua contraria. And let me put them a case upon this point, one in state of virginity is supposed to abound more with lustful desires (which are opposite to internal chastity) then one married: Now which of these, think they, in this particular, more perfect, in the judgement of God: that party which doth not profess external chastity, yet is in the mind more chast, or that party which doth profess external chastity and is internally less chast? what will they say to this? for this is casus dabilis, they must say that the party professing virginity is more perfect: but then it is not better to marry than to burn: and then they contradict St. Paul in the former ch. v. 9.
Then with the former Text he confronts that of our ‘Saviour, which I produced against him, St. Luke the 17.10. So likewise when you have done all those things that are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done what we ought to do.’ And here my adversary puts in by way of distinction, he saith not, which are onely commanded by way of Counsel. And again he puts in, what we ought to do to wit by an express precept obliging under damnation. And then he applies the former Text, In one sense this man who hath not married his daughter [Page 897] may truly say I have done what I ought to do not out of strict obligation binding under pain of hell (for I might have done well in doing the contrary) but what I ought to do out of most perfect charity. Ans. Passing by what we said to the former Text simply, we say to it as compared with this of Christ, that this Text of Christ doth not well bear his distinction, because the termes speak altogether in contradistinction unto counsels: it speaks of doing all that was commanded: it speaks of their being unprofitable servants: it speaks of doing what they ought to do upon strict obligation: for so [...] there bears due correspondence with [...]: and this word signifies a strict command. Secondly compare this Text with the scope of it in the [...]; which we have in the 7, 8, 9. verses. And as the servant attends the Master in necessary services; so also in the tenth verse which is the [...], the creature is related to God in necessary services of strict obedience: and therefore he cannot here distinguish of what we ought to do, upon strict obligation, and what we ought to do out of most perfect charity. Thirdly this distinction of theirs will destroy their doctrine of counsels: because, if counsels be grounded in a duty of most perfect charity, then nothing can be counselled which is not commanded, because most perfect charity is under a command. If most perfect charity were under a counsel, then there might indeed be more said for counsels: but since most perfect charity is under a command, what ground is there for counsels when the root of them namely most perfect charity 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: [Page 898] 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 [Page 899] 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 [Page 900] 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 [Page 901] meanes to compass his intention. And then he would frame a minor with advantage thus, even our ordinary wisedome (if we had an intention to set forth a writing to end all necessary controversies) would direct us to set down plainly & clearly in one place all those (few as you say) points necessary to be believed. So then, this must be a good argument, man in such a case, in ordinary wisedome, would do so, therefore God hath done so. Surely these Romanists speak from the top of the Capital; and will not only teach men, but God. One found fault blasphemously with Gods creation, thinking and saying that he could have made it better. So. But the Schoolemen might have told my adversaries that though God could have made several things in their accidentals, better: yet they could not but say that he could not make them in a better manner, Meliori modo. So then, also, if they believe that God did make the Scripture, they may believe that he could not make it in a better and more wise manner. Let them satisfie then St. Pauls question, who hath been his Counceller? And then the argument from man to God will binde. And yet 2. Turn the tables, and this discourse is returned to them; if God had intended the Church for our infallible guide he would clearly (since his wisdome directs him to the best means for the compassing of his intention) have told us so in one place or other; as well as man tells us plainly who is our judge in point of law, this they should have demonstrated, but no more need be said of this, since the question is de facto.
Yet another argument of this kind he hath against us, God hath set down the cermeonies in Leviticus fully, particularly and clearly: points of faith necessary to salvation import incomparably more then points of meer ceremonie. If then God had intended a book by which only he was resolved to deliver unto us all points necessary to salvation, these points, as you say, being few, he would in some one part of these books have clearly set down those few points a thousand times more importing than points of ceremony. Ans. Surely he hath [Page 902] better arguments or a bad cause, because he in the time of the law appointed a Sanedrin as a standing Assembly to judge all causes and the high priest too, in some case: therefore he must have appointed such an Assembly now, which should consist of many of the laity, to judge all causes, and the Pope too. God is not moved by any thing to act all waies in the same manner. Deus vult hoc propter hoc, sed non propter hoc vult. God orders this to this but by this is not moved. But 2. His substratum here is false; for he supposeth here that all the ceremonies are set down together in one place, otherwise how can he upon compare say, much more the summe of points necessary should have been set down in some one part of these books, now the cerimonies are not all set downe together; and now and then some morality is mingled with them. And so also points necessary may be here and there mingled with other points without any disparagement of Gods wisedome, 3. If he hath particularly clearly and fully set down points of ceremonie in Scripture, then how much more points necessary to salvation, a thousand times more importing then points of ceremonie. But verum prius; for it is theirs, then the latter also, upon the same account. And so they may see how little they get by such arguments. And therefore surely Christ is not obliged to his Church for credibility, but his Church to his word and spirit. Let ‘them think upon that of Christ St. Iohn the 7.17. if any one will do my will he shall know of my doctrin whether it be of God or whether I speak of my selfe.’
And yet another proof you bring in that many hold that the Epistles of St. Iohn were written after the Apocalypse &c. And what then. Is it therefore true, because many hold so? I trow not, for then rather it should not be so, because more hold the contrary, but what would he make of it, if they had been written after the Apocalypse? this. Upon this supposition the Epistles of St. Iohn are the last part of ‘the canon, now in this last part of the last part of the Canon [Page 903] Saint Iohn saies, I have many things to write, but I will not with inke and penne write them but, I trust we shall see thee shortly and speake face to face.’ Upon this, the broken matter of his discourse might for more cleareness be put into this forme, many things were written which are not set down in the canon: no man can say that those many things were unnecessary. Therefore no man can say that many things not unnecessary are not set down in the canon. Ans. We need not answer it. The ground of the major is rotten, and is to be made firm, if it could by him, that is not the order of the books. And it is not the order in the Latin; therefore this binds them to beleive the contrary. And therefore the minor, which must suppose that supposition must fall with it. And yet also how he minceth it, no man can say &c. What is this to settle us in infallibility. He might also have said better for himself, some things not unnecessary might be amongst those which St. Iohn intended to speak to them; and this would have served his turne against us. But let them speak and prove categorically that the Epistles were written after the Apocalypse, and that many things which he would speak unto them were necessary. Otherwise no man can say that this argumentation concludes ought. And besides the terms unnecessary, might have a distinction, if it sounds as useful it is not to the point of the question: if as much as necessary: yet what he should speak to them, he should speak by the spirit of God, and let them give us such assurance for what they would adde to Scripture: then they will say somewhat. And yet again they should not surely be necessary, because many: for surely some things which were necessary were written; and yet those things which are certain are few, as Tertullian said, Certa sunt in paucis. Again should those many things have been adverse to what he had written or diverse, or the same in substance? not adverse they will say, because they say their traditions are praeter Evangelium, not contra, beside the Gospel, not [Page 904] contrary: if diverse, then surely they did not contein things in substance necessary. For would Saint Iohn have written several things not necessary, and have left to word of mouth things necessary when Ebion and Cerinthus vaunted so much of their Apostolical traditions. And if they were the same in substance, then what addition? Again if they were necessary how can this be reconciled to that of St. Iohn the 20.31. whereupon St. Austin and St. Cyrill and St. Chrysostom, it seems, do conclude that there was enough written which was sufficient to faith: my third answer about this argument, that humane judicatories have their use without infalliblity, he toucheth not.
My fourth he toucheth in the next paragr.
Par. 57.In this number he seems, if I may think so to be a litle hooked, and with more line to be more snarled. There must stick upon the Church Roman a censure either of fallibility or unfaithfulness. Thus it is, they say the Scripture is not our guide sufficiently because it doth not decide controversies, we return it to them, that upon the same account the Church Roman is not, because it doth not decide whatsoever is necessary to be believed, by a full Catholique in their sense. And for instance; whether the Pope hath a temporal power or not? if temporal, whether directly as the Canonists, or propter bonum spirituale, as others: then whether the Pope be superiour to a Council in things Ecclesiastical. To these he gives me no positive account: and yet are these points Cardines mundi & ecclesiae; the main points upon which the Church and world with them must turne. Do they tell us that it is a necessary point know whether the king be head of the Church; and is it not as necessary for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church? But we must consider his apology. Our doctrine is that the Church can decide any point formerly revealed, when any necessity shall require it, or the declaration of this point concerne salvation. Ans. what worke would some adversary have made [Page 905] him for such a return? The charge against Scripture was that it cannot end all necessary controversies. I recriminate, neither doth their Church. They reply, the Church can. I reioyn, first, here they vary. I said their Church, they say, the Church; as if they would not own the Church of Rome in its catholickness. 2. They say it can. But if it can and will not, I am yet to seek for my trust. and as St. Ierom said to the Pelagians about the possibility of the law, how shall we think that possible which was never done? if it cannot, how is it infallible in all points? if it will not, how is it faithfull? if it can, let it do so: and then let them object our differences to us, and the inability of Scripture to end them. 3. He saies the Church can decide any point formerly revealed, what meanes he by this? if formerly revealed, then what need of a judge for it? and then the most they can do is to declare; and so may another Church and that not necessary neither, if it were formerly revealed. Well then. Are these points revealed or not? if they be not revealed, then by their own confession, they cannot decide them. And if they be formerly revealed, what need to be decided but▪ but 4. When any necessity shall require &c. But let me know why, when such a thing is proposed by the Church it is a fundamental and a necessary point to be believed, and yet somewhat is necessary to be believed and yet not decided by the Church. As for instance, it is necessary to be believed that the Pope is head of the Church: for so Bellarmin defines a Christian with subjection to the Pope as head of the Church, in his Catechism. And yet it seemes this is not decided by the Church; because then it is decided whether he be supreme in Ecclesiasticals. So then the definition of the Church cannot be the adaequate reason of our faith, because somewhat is necessary to be believed which is not decided; and yet again, if somewhat be necessary to be believed, then by my adversaries confession, it ought to be declared, because it doth concern our salvation. And [Page 906] since the Church is to act not ex arbitrio, but ex officio, how can it else clear it self of the bloud of all men, as St. Paul doth Acts 20.27. when it doth not declare [...], the whole counsel of God. And if they take [counsel] here in their sense; we can make use of it to them thus, that if he declared all counsels then much more necessary doctrine, because counsels, according to them, are not simply necessary, but yet it cannot be taken in their sense, because he dischargeth himselfe hereby of the bloud of all men? and therefore must it be meant of what was necessary to their salvation simply; as counsels, they say are not.
So then he thinks it the best way to pitch upon the negative, and to say, Salvation hath very securely been had without the decision of these points you speak of. If Circumstances happen that salvation cannot be had without their decision, they will then be decided. Ans. first then, let there be a defalcation and discounting of one point from the number of those which are accounted by them to us necessary, which the Scripture hath not decided, and that is whether the King be head of the Church, for surely there is as much reason of necessity to salvation for them to know whether the Pope be head of the Church, as for us to know whether the King be head; and more too since infallibility is annexed to their head. 2. If Salvation may be had without an assurance in those points, then how shall we be bound to the Trent Council in beliefe of the Roman Church to be the Apostolick Church, without which no salvation, when yet we need not know who is supreme in that Church? Take it in this forme, subjection to the universal Church is necessary to salvation, the Roman Church is not universal unles he be head, therefore unles he be head of the Church, subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation. And then Conclamatum est. And if Circumstances, according to him, can bring these points under a necessity of decision, then it seems they are but indifferent ex naturâ rei, for circumstances are only considerable [Page 907] in case of indifferency. And then by the virtue of the former discourse, it is indifferent to salvation whether we be subject to the Roman Church or not. And so might we end the business.
But he goes on, if you acknowledge a reall necessity to be at all times of the infallible knowledge of these points. Ans. He doth not take notice that I dispute with him upon his own principles, by which he he is bound to shew that the Church hath defined these points; since he saies the Scripture hath not decided all necessary points: but hath referred us to the Church for their decision. Now then since these points are not necessary to us, but to them who have that opinion of the Roman Church, it belongs to them to shew the Church's decision of these points. And therefore if they believe all Scripture, and therefore these, (if they be determined there) this will not serve them, though it is enough for us; because what the Scripture doth not clearly define, they say the Church by Scripture is deputed to. And if the Church hath not done it, though they know the way to Rome, they do not know the way to heaven, and so all his arguments fall of themselves.
That which he saies he addes that our whole Church teacheth the definitions of Councils confirmed to be infallible, how little hath it in it: their whole Church if they take it for the universal Church, it is but a part, either in quantity or dominion. If they mean it not as the universal Church, then we may say as well our whole Church teacheth that they are not infallible, nay nor did the former Councils themselves account themselves infallible. But 2. [Councils confirmed] by whom confirmed? why do they not here speak out? for in other places, where this is not actually contested, they will say that they are to be confirmed by the Pope. But why then are they so loath to end the controversie upon which side the superiority should be cast upon the council or upon the Pope? for if the councils are to be confirmed by the Pope, then they have their esse [Page 908] Constitutivum▪ from him, and then [...] he must have the superiority; notwithstanding what the Council of Basil and Constance determined. But I can demonstrate that no Circumstances will ever be sufficient to give occasion to this decision. All points are to be decided by Councils confirmed, now the councils will never vote the superiority of the Pope, nor the Pope confirm the superiority of the Council. Therefore it will never be decided. Let them therefore submit to Scripture, which their Church obligeth them to believe. And let them hereafter think better of the Scriptures sufficiency, since in such points the Church Roman cannot or will not or dare not supply its supposed defects. And they shall find it not to leave them ignorant of what is necessary for them to know: to cavill at it, they will pretend that to be necessary which they will say the next moment not to be necessary. They call for a decision by Scripture of the question whether a King be head of the Church, as of a necessary point, and now they deny the question to be necessary of the Pope.
N. 58.Herein he would reinforce his argument to prove us contrary to Scripture in not receiving extreme unction, as a Sacrament upon the command of St. Iames, 5.13, 14, 15. ver. first he declaimes upon our deniall of their interpretation. And then would urge it upon compare of the claritude of this next for them with the clearenes of other texts produced for us. Let them answer our texts as we answer theirs, and not only say that one is as clear as the other.
Well, but he saies now, How clear this place is, appears by the very letter, in which we have all we can desire to make a Sacrament; a visible signe of an invisible grace. Ans. every Sacrament of proper name is a visible signe of an invisible grace: but every visible signe of an invisible grace is not a Sacrament of proper name, unles it hath Christs institution. And therefore must we referre it to the use of healing, spoken of St. Marke the 6, 13, which it [Page 909] seems, continued some time, 1 Ep. Cor. 12. [...]9. And "30, gifts of healing.
Yet he supposeth that the Scripture hath decided this point for them. Hereupon, we came upon him, ‘if, the Scripture hath decided this point,’ then the Scripture can judge and end controversies. To this he replies by asking, whether it therefore follows that it can end all necessary controversies, because it can end this one controversie. We reioyne, that it doth not follow ex vi formae, that because it can do one, it can do all. But yet it may follow ex vi materiae, thus; if it can decide this which is a necessary matter, why not all such? since especially they confess this Sacrament is not so necessary, as some other, because it is but a casuall Sacrament. And the Sacrament of penance may supply the use of it. But 2. The use which we make of his former concession as it seems, that the Scripture had decided this point, is in order to the act more then the object. For hereby we see that the Scripture can decide a point, which by them is wont to be allowed onely to a living judge: now it is true ex parte actus, if it can decide one, it can decide another; for the cheif incapacity of the Scriptures not deciding controversies is urged in reference to the act: and therefore a living judge is by them substituted for this capacity.
But he saies, again is this controversie by this text ended? do you not still stand out in the contrary opinion. Ans. This doth not hinder the controversie to be ended, because we are not convinced. It is possible for them to be convinced of some points which they will not profess. It is possible for some points to be clear, which they are not convinced of; conviction therefore is not the measure of decision. For by this argument the Trent Council had with us and the French ended no controversies: because we are not convinced thereby. And therefore we are not to be guided by them, because they cannot end our controversies. And if they say the Council is furnished with [Page 910] sufficient assistance of the spirit, which may be apt to convince: surely we can say that the Scripture is more apt to convince, because there is no question made of its being written by inspiration. So then we cannot say, that the point of extreme unction is not decided, because we are not convinced: but we can say that we are not convinced, because it is not decided. But also we must note to them from hence that it seems we must be perswaded in matters of beliefe by the Holy Ghost, since texts which they suppose so clear, do not convince. Moreover he saies, your second answer is flatly against the Text, for you say those words do onely relate to the gift of healing in those daies; and the Scripture saith they have also a relation to the healing of the soul. "If he hath committed sinnes they shall be forgiven him. Ans. Qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat. He doth not take notice that the healing of the soul hath relation to the prayer of Faith; unless Esti [...] and the Rhemists can indeed prove that the Prayer of Faith is the forme of the Sacrament. Secondly, whereas he blames me for referring this to the gift of healing, let him retract that blame for the Council of Trents sake; which in the 14 session, for want likely of other Texts to prove Christ's institution of this Sacrament, will have it insinuated by St. Mark; which surely can be onely in the 6. ch. where it refers to the gift of healing. And there they may see that the Elders did cure by anointing with oyle: which he demands a Text for. And they did it commonly in respect of frequency, though not commonly, quod modum effectus. Therefore may we see by this, that the Trent Council could erre (and if that, other Councils, they may think) in its peremptory determination of this point, Si quis dixerit extremam unctionem non esse vere & proprie sacramentum, & a beato Iacolo Apostolo promulgatum; sed ritum tantum acceptum a patribus, aut figmentum humanum, Anathema sit. If any one shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament promulged by the blessed Apostle St. Iames, but a rite taken [Page 911] from the fathers, or to be in humane [...]igment, let him be Anathema. Neither did Christ institute it nor [...] [...]es promulge it; nor did the fathers, it seems, [...]ake it [...]or a sacrament. So, as it was said of Origen, Ingenium s [...]m facit ecclesiae Sacramenta: so do these men ou [...] of their own wit make sacraments of the Church. Only Origen made mysteries of the Church, as the word is taken largely: these make Sacraments, as the word is taken strictly. And surely they are hard put to it to attribute what there to the Sacrament, which is atttributed to prayer, which is therefore so much Commended by the Apostle in the following verses.
To take notice here of that which is new,N. 59. He here confronts the clearness of that Text [this is my body] with the clearness of those Texts I produced for the Sunday and Baptism of Infants.
He saies, they are words expressed by four several writers of the Scripture without any intimation of their being spoken figuratively. Ans. We have produced some Texts for the observation of the Lords day and for Baptism of Infants, without any figure: therefore our Texts may, upon this account be as clear. Secondly, If the sense of this Text be so clear, why did not the Ages of the Church urge it before the Lateran Councill? were they all also blind? as they must be, if the Text was so clear in their sense. And Thirdly, If the Text so clear of it self, what need to conferr it with the sixth of St. Iohn, and if they would conferr Texts they might find more against them in the points of difference. But what will they say if the sixth of St. Iohn speaks not of Sacramental eating? For if so, how can the 53. ver. be understood: for then Infants (unless they are to have the Communion, as antiently) and the Thief upon the Cros [...], and all in time of Persecution which died without the Sacrament, are damned, but as they know, they are not all of a mind in this; for Cressy thinks the Chap. is not to be taken of the Sacrament, and Bellarmine will find us [Page 912] more of this perswasion; as Gabriel, and Cusan [...], and Cajetan, and Tapperus, and Hesselius, and Iansenius, in his 4th. b. de Sacrament [...] Euch. Cap. 5. and they have good reason to exempt this Chap. from this use, because it speaks as strictly of the Cup.
Therefore let them consider what hath been said before upon this point, and then let them referre the issue to a compare betwixt the clearness of texts for them in points of difference, and of texts for us as to things necessary. for this should have been the state of the question.
The contradiction he makes by the shift is not yet well answered. He said in the former paper that the words are clear in this Sacrament: and yet also that the Scripture ‘doth not decide this point. Upon this I said, how farre is this from a contradiction.’ He saies now, that this doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles. Ans. He was much mistaken, if he thought I could be thus deceived with a supposal, of his own consequence for one of my principles. He would cavill thus, this text which he brings is more clear for him then those I bring are clear for me. Then if my texts less clear for me do prove my points▪ those texts more clear for him do prove his texts. But we say the texts he brings are not so clear for him as they are clear against him: and therefore how can he proceed upon our principles.
And yet again he saies, and again you say on the other side by these our texts (clearer then yours) this controversie is not clearly decided, therefore I must consequently say that according to you this controversie the Scripture doth not decide. Ans. Some are blamed for charging upon opinions remote consequences but he chargeth me with a consequence of his opinion that because he thinks his texts more clear for him then mine for me, I must needs also say so, to free him from inconvenience; surely we can hold our principles better then he would make them. And yet once more he will play the Sophister it is according to your principles that these texts must [Page 913] be clear because they be clearer then those which you are forced to affirm clear. And again you must say that they are not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you. Ans. This harpes upon the same string, he supposeth me a Captive to his consequences upon his own opinion. My principle is good, that points necessary are clearly set down in Scripture: but his assumption is not right that his texts are more clear then mine. this I demand the proof of. If I were bound by my principles or his discourse to confess that his texts were clearer then mine; he would say somewhat: but falsum prius. And yet this is fairely returnable to him, he is bound by the condition of their principles to say that their texts are clear for him (and yet they are not so clear for him as they are against him) because they have neither reason nor Antiquity for their sense: and yet must say again that the text hath not decided this point, for feare it should be able to decide controversies.
And now he draws up again, now if these two places be denied to be clear with clarity sufficient to put an end to the controversie, then according to my principles, scarce any controversie will be decided by any text. Ans. He hath seen the reasons why those texts must be denied to bear his sense and whether he hath as well cleared my texts for things necessary to be conteined plainly in Scripture, let those judge, whose interess it is not, to be Judges. To such I say, [...] 2. He doth very ill to argue from his conceit to an impossibility in the thing; as if, if these texts did not clearly speak this his sense, no controversie could be determined by any text. A non esse ad non posse non valet. He might have known that the Nicene Fathers determined the Coessentiality of the Son of God by Scripture and that Bellarmin concludes against the Anabaptists by Scripture. And that the Trent Council, I hope, concluded extreme unction by Scripture: so that it lay in Scripture clearly determined, as in actu signato: the Council did but call it out and shew it to the people. [Page 914] 3. He should have said [according to his purpose] scarse any controversie can then be determined by Scripture: for speculative principles may yeild more then ingagements. Persons will ever plead dissatisfaction, though the Judgement within be convinced. And 3. Others of his religion are not in this of his perswasion: for they will not so lightly give over the determinability of other points by Scripture. And yet I commend also his modesty in that he saies not absolutely no controversie, but scarse any controversie. So that it is not repugnant to a controversie Ex natura rei to be determined by Scripture. And then there is no such necessity of a living Judge, surely the living Judge is more necessary for the state of Rome than for our salvation.
Then he takes exceptions at my discourse about the nature of a sacrament. He tells me, you do not do it as you should have been done to the present purpose; to wit by alleadging more clear texts to prove that Christs true body is not really in the Sacrament, then I alleadge to prove that it was really in it. Ans. But first they may thinke that we do understand our selves sufficiently in this case, not to be bound to give any texts for the negative. And therefore since they affirme they should prove so strongly that nothing can be answered: and since they challenge, they should make clear work as they goe; we sufficiently discharge our parts in the taking away their arguments, which concludes to us and might to them the negative, and since the signal texts for their cause in this point, are answered we have no more to do. 2. Such a demand will return upon him; I have reason to doubt of his Interpretation of the text of St. Iames lately agitated. I say also, give me a clearer text against my sense which I make of it, namely as relating to the gift of healing. Is not this as equall a demand, since especially the council could not, it seems, fetch their sense from tradition? 3. If Christ's being really in the Sacrament would satisfie them without determination of [Page 915] the manner, this controversie would be at an end: for we say as antiently, Praesentiam agnoscimus, modum nescimus, but, forsooth, they must appoint the manner of presence, and yet cannot agree about the manner of conversion of the Element into the body. 4. What need of any texts against their sense, when the sense imports that which cannot be? although the Canonists do flatter the Pope with all kind of power: yet one said well of him, Papa non potest facere de quadrato rotundum. Nay, as Aquinas determins handsomely concerning those things which are in question whether God can do, it should rather be said that they cannot be done, then that God cannot do them. So this cannot be. For it implies a contradiction, yea many, as it is noted. It implies the body not to be when it is. If the body be to be made then it is not: for the terme of motion cannot be existent before the motion be accomplished. So then it is, namely in Heaven: and yet must not be, because it is to be made on Earth by the Priest. And yet fiftly. If he would not make an ill use of a courtesie, we might gratifie this humor a little; and tell him that there is a Text in the 1 Ep. to the Cor. 11.26. which concludes clearly against his sense, for it is said, "you shew the Lords death till he come. If it be done in remembrance, how is he corporally present? And now me thinks then they should be obliged to answer my Texts for my sense against their sense: since indeed their sense is non-sence.
Here he comes over again (to make the work more tedious) with some passages of the Athanasian Creed,N. 60. which he thinks every one is bound explicitly to believe (though they think an implicit faith sufficient to them) and yet they are not clearly set down in Scripture, To this I answered that the matter of them in the generality is found according to equivalence in Scripture although it be not found in terms. Only they are desired to consider that this answer was made to the other passages of the Athanasian Creed, [Page 916] and not to the consubstantiality of the Son of God: for this is more expresly spoken of as I have told them; but because he would not be urged to a necessity of answering what I said distinctly about this point, he includes it amongst other passages of the Creed: it may be upon these accounts: that it might seem to be under no more necessity of actual belief than the other; and Secondly, might lose the use of a proper answer, and he might have less to do by answering it in common, but we are not ignorant of his devices.
My answer therefore to the properties of the divine persons in the H. Trinity is yet in full vigour and force, that the matter of them is as well found in Scripture, (though not in termes, yet according to equivalence) as their transubstantiation.
To this he saies now, To be as clearely set down as Transubstantiation, in Scripture, is (according to your own principles) not to be clearly set down at all. Ans. Again he playes the Sophister in taking that to be spoken ad rem, which was spoken ad hominem. Therefore cannot be conclude that there is an equall independency of both on Scripture to be inferred from my words. They hold transubstantiation so upon Scripture; I not. But I make use of their distinction, as to this point, against them, for those passages in the Athanasian Creed.
Neither is it any boot for him to say, It is not more satisfactorie, if you mean to argue out of our own principles; for according to us, all points necessary, (and this point in particular) are not clearly set down in Scripture, and to prove this I have laboured all the Chap. So then, thus we know Ulysses. They will make the best proof of their points they can by Scripture: but they make a better use of Scriptures by their obscurity; that so causes might necessarily fall into the hands of the Romans. First then, this [...] we have by them, that they dare not stand to Scripture for the determination of their points, and they may know who those were which were Lucifugae Scripturarum. Therefore I hope, we [Page 917] shall have leave to make the shorter work by abatement of discourse out of Scripture. For when you produce Scripture for your cause, we can retort your own confession, this point is not clear in Scripture. Having then beaten them out of the hold of the Fathers, & now out of the hold of the Scriptures, we may have done enough. But secondly, to give them a little more chase, though they will not make Scripture a Principle; yet since they will make it a proof for their auctorament, we can say as well as they can prove this point by Scriptures; so is the Athanasian Creed as provable by Scripture, as to those passages about the properties of the divine persons. And now might I name Boucher, who in his Mir veilles de Deiu, hath the same distinction in the point of transubstantiation, that though it be not found in Scripture in the term, yet according to equivalence. But what saith Bellarmin in his 3. b. de sacr. Euch. cap. 23. Etiamsi Scriptura quam supra adduximus videatur nobis tam clara ut possit cogere hominem, non protervum, tamen an ita fit, merito dubitari potest. So then the Scripture seems to him to be in this point so clear that it might compel a man not pertinacious. Yet he must needs spill the milk he gives, lest we should come no more to the Roman Cow. But if a Scripture may be so clear to them in a point of controversie: why not to us, in points necessary? Yea the Trent Counsel goes further in their 13 Sess. They say the words do carry before them that proper and most open signification, propiam illam & apertissimam significationem prae se ferunt. And I hope they carried a plain and most open signification did they not? if they did not, then here is a falsity to the Councils Declaration, if they did; so may Scripture have a plain and most open signification in points of faith. Again if the Sacrament of extreme unction was determined by the Trent Counsel with respect to Scripture, as before, why should we not stand to Scripture in other points?
And this may be sufficient out of their own principles. And as for our own principles, as to the question about the [Page 918] properties of the Divine Persons, we need not labour therein. For if we hold that all things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture: then it is consequent hereunto, that the truth of those properties is no more necessary to be believed than according to what clearness they are delivered in by Scripture. And then Secondly, to answer to the point it self, those opposite relations, as Aquinas calleth them, whereby the H. persons are distinguished in their personalities, do connotate themselves sufficiently. For the Father being the first Person, must be of himself; the Son, as such, must be begotten. The H. Ghost, since there is but one only Son, as is plain in Scripture, must not be begotten: but proceeds; which is the expression of Scrip-there. Indeed there is a question whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. But as to this we need not consult the antient reading of the Athanasian Creed; if the Mr. of the sentences may be believed, who thinks there is not so vast a difference, as that either part did destroy salvation. And if it be absolutely necessary to believe as the Roman Church in this point, why could not Pope Urban see the truth hereof in the dispute with the Greeks about it, as well as our Anselm? Why did he bring him into the Lists with this Preface, Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis papam? And surely it seems to be as possible for the unlearned people to be saved without a positive faith herein, as it was for the learned Greeks in a positive difference: unless our adversaries will damn them all who hold not with them herein. He goes on, your second answer is destroyed by the former. Answ. Yes surely if our adversaries are to be our judges, we need not hold our articles which we hold necessary, upon the authority of the Church, but upon clear Texts; and clearer Texts too, than they have for their transubstantiation or authority of the Church.
But to the main matter of my answer he makes no return. ‘I said, although we believe what is said in [Page 919] (Athanasius) his creed, yet therefore we are not bound to believe it upon the Authority of the Church, since he would have believed it though the Church had not; as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the consubstantiality of the sonne of God.’ And what saies he to this? nothing. And besides the Authority of the Church hath not it selfe equally to the passages in the Creed and to transubstantiation. And therefore Scotus said that this transubstantiation was no dogma fidei before the Lateran Council, as Bellarmin saies in his 3. b. de sacram. Euch. 23. ch. For as for the consent of the Fathers (which he saies he did non read) surely Scotus did very well know what it was; since the consent of the Fathers is by the Schoolemen laid for the foundation of school-Divinity. It remaineth therefore that both my answers may be good according to both principles.
Another instance of things necessary not clearly taught by Scripture, he does here re-urge,N. 61. namely Baptism of Infants. And here he names my answer, that it is not necessary for the Salvation of the Children to be baptized. But here I distinguished of a necessity of praecept and a necessity of mean, the former we granted: the latter we denied, "so as that if it be not baptized, it is undoubtedly damned. These words do make my sense to be understood against an absolute necessity, without which no possibility of Salvation. To prove this, I brought the Text St. Marke the 16.6. ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeteh not shall be damned.’ now, this Text, he saith, speaketh nothing of Children. And this gloss he gives upon the latter part of that Text He that believeth not, and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned. Ans. He trifles. I acknowledge that the Text speaks not of Infants: for the drift of my discourse upon this Text was otherwise, namely upon the case of those of age. And my argument did runne upon advantage, thus; if the H. Gh. Did not reduplicate damnation upon defect [Page 920] of baptism to those of age, then much less reason is there to exclude Infants from Salvation, who may have baptism in re but in voto not, as they speak. This was the effect of my discourse let the point come to the pinch. Though they do believe yet should they have the seale of faith: but if they do not believe, damnation here proceeds not upon defect of baptism, but upon defect of faith, which if Bellarmin had considered, he would not have annexed Salvation imediately to baptism in his 2. b. de ef. sacr. c. 3. And not to faith but as a disposition to baptism. 2. All positive refusal of baptism makes a defect of baptism: but all defect of baptism doth not make even in those of age a refusal thereof. Now it is casus dabilis, that one of age may believe, and yet may not have baptism, as the necessity may fall out. Shall this man be damned though he hath faith, because he hath not baptism, which he could not have? and this was the case which the Martyr that on a suddain, when one of the forty shrunke, stepped in and made up the number, as St. Basil relates it, he believed and was not Baptized. What was he damned? no, they will say he had baptism in voto, and the baptism of bloud. Well, but if there were an absolute necessity of baptism as there is of faith he must have been damned notwithstanding, absolute necessity knowes no dispensations.
But therefore he produceth a Text for absolute necessity, St. Iohn the 3.5. ‘Except a man be borne of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of heaven.’ Ans. If we compare this verse with the third, we need not make any other construction then of a necessity of being born from above. Neither is it likely that Christ would have spoken no otherwise to Nicodemus of baptism, had he meant it so. And Ferus, though he speaks of this sense ad literam; yet hath he other senses thereof. And if it be compared with the other Text St. Matthew 3.11. you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire; [Page 921] as that Text is to be understood by an [...] so may this also, notwithstanding the order of the words. But 2. Dato, non concesso, that it is to be understood of Baptismal water, yet the Rhemists upon the place do confess that in two cases Baptismal water is not necessary. Namely in the case of martyrdome; and if they have a desire of it, but are prevented necessarily by death. And the reason thereof is sufficient, because God hath not bound his grace in respect of his own freedome, to the Sacraments. and so Ferus upon the place, Deus enim non alligavit potentiam suam Sacramentis &c. God hath not tied his own power to the Sacraments. By his ordinate will indeed he gives grace by the Sacraments: But nevertheles he can give it without the Sacrament. Let them then tell me why Infants may not have rem Sacramenti, without the seale: as if God should have no favour for Infants, because they cannot be qualified for the priviledge. Let then the Rhemists and Ferus be compurgators for the pernicious doctrine of mine as he calls it. And now whatsoever testimony he produceth of the necessity of baptism; (unles St. Austin's, as to Infants) they will stand very well with my termes in their ordinary sense; which doth not contradict an ordinary necessity of it to Infants: but again that all the Fathers were of this opinion I can deny. I except Tertullian. And St. Austin for those of age, holdes but an ordinary necessity; as appears in his 4. b. De Bapt. Contra Donat. 23. ch. This ordinary necessity I stand for. He himself intends no more by his testimonies, Dr. Tayler's and others, and therefore he absolves me himself: but I cannot absolve him from ignorance in the Elench. This doth not contradict me, who do dispute now against an absolute necessity: which he must maintain; or else in this he comes short of his design. And also that that allowance of baptism of Infants (after it be done) doth not inferre an absolute necessity of their being damned (in the judgment of the Fathers) if they were not Baptized; if they will take Mr. Hookers opinion [Page 922] for all, let them consult him in his 5. b. 33. p. where he saith ‘I know there are many sentences found in the books and writings of the antient Fathers to prove both Ecclessiastical and Moral defects in the Ministers of Baptism a bar to the heavenly benefit thereof.’ Now in Laymen, I trow, there are Ecclesiastical defects: for there is a defect in not being Ecclesiastical. And therefore whether others mistake the Fathers, either in the point of fact, or in the reason of that allowance, [...].
But he gives me a Syllogism, which we will not neglect, because it is very rare with him. He disputes upon my distinction of necessity, thus; This precept is necessarily to be fulfilled, this precept is not plainly set down in Scripture: therefore all necessary points are not plainly set down in Scripture. This hath the face but not the form of a Syllogism. But to pass that, we answer therefore that this Syllogism doth not conclude contradictorily to the state of the question, which is whether all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture. Now all that is necessary to be done is larger then all that is necessary to be done unto Salvation. Though all things necessary to be done unto Salvation, are necessary to be done: yet all that is necessary to be done, is not necessary to be done unto Salvation. The former are necessary necessitate medii: the latter necessitate praecepti. Now the knowledg of the former is simply necessary: the knowledg of the latter is not so necessary. Whatsoever is known to be praecepted is to be necessarily done: but whatsoever is praecepted, is not necessary to be known. So that also his Syllogism was peccant in the fallacie of the consequent.
He followes me then, your Answer will not helpe you out here, whatsoever is necessarily inferred from the Scriptures is binding in the vertue of the principles, why so? because he saies, because you cannot shew that this precept given to the parents is necessarily inferred out of Scripture. So now he is upon the minor of the former Syllogism: he would then prove it by [Page 923] a negative Induction. Not out of the Institution of our Saviour; for he also instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not necessary for Infants. Ans. first this is no argument; it doth not follow from the denial of one species to another: because he did not institute the Eucharist as necessary for infants; threfore he did not institute the Sacrament of baptism as necessary for Infants. 2. they know there is not the same reason for the Institution of the Eucharist for Infants as for the Institution of baptism. For this is administred to the child without its own faith; the other is administred upon faith to confirmation. 3. If they will be ruled by tradition and the authority of the Church; the Eucharist was accounted also as necessary for Infants. Now that tradition came from Christ as his institution or not, if it did, then there is some reason for baptism to Infants: if not, how shall we believe tradition or the authority of the Church.
He proceeds, not out of substitution to Circumcision: for so it should not be necessary to women. To be even with them, The high Priest was only of males: the Pope succeeds the high Priest: therefore the Popedome was not competible to Ioane: some of them would fain have somewhat for woman to be proportionable to Circumcision of males towards the taking away of original sinne, which should be an object of tradition; But as the unmarried was included in the parent; so the woman included under her husband, as to this.
Yet such another argument we have, then it should be necessary only for those of the Iewish nation. As if Circumcision was inioyned to the Iew upon the quatenus of the nation, and not as they were members of the Church, under the same Covenant with Christians, as to the substance thereof: and therefore Eusebius saies of some of those under the law, that they were [...] though not [...] they were reall Christians, or in effect Christans, though not in denomination. [Page 924] That which followes was cast in by me ex abundanti, and not as such a decretory argument, namely, ‘besides what may be supposed by the baptism of whole families. And therefore he needed not to have said, it is no evident consequence.’ It was never intended for such. Valeat quantum valere potest. And yet if it be as probable or more that in all those families complexively there were some at least, if but one or two Infants, this consequence, I think I may say, is better then any they have given us to prove their infallibility.
At the end of this number he saies, I insist not upon the authorities I alledged out of St. Austin, St. Chrys. because I deal with one who little regards authority confessed to be the Fathers. Ans. He might first have answered what I said to his citation of St. Austin. but it seems by his neglect either that the Fathers are not for him or he not for the Fathers; or indeed both; and the latter because the former. He is not for the Fathers because they are not for him. And let them consider that of St. Austin in his 4. b. de Bap. contra Don. 28. ch. Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit. Notwithstanding we may truly guesse what the Sacrament of Baptism does avail in infants out of the circumcision of the flesh, which the former people received. And Bellarmin must think Scripture good against Anabaptists, but not for us against them, who make better use of it as a tradition.
N. 62.And now to make an end of his long Chap. as he saies himself (and I say so too, but it might have been made shorter by him by halfe) he saies he concludes, as I would have him, namely that these points were and ought to be determined by the Church upon necessity of Salvation. He saies now, This I prove by this argument, This point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent, but we cannot believe any point with an infallible assent unless it be determined by infallible authority. And the authority of the Scripture hath [Page 925] not determined these points; then since no other infallible authority can be found on Earth, if we deny the authority of the Church to be infallible, her authority must needs be infallible. Ans. after a long chap. to make his word good, he makes as long an argument which might have been put into two lines. But part of his book was to be length. But we answer in short first to the major proposition; if he meanes when they are believed they are to be believed with an infallible assent, we grant it; or when they are clearely proposed, are so to be believed, we grant it: but if he means it thus, that this point and all the former are necessary to be believed with an infallible assent, upon necessity of Salvation, it is denied. And he hath not nor can prove it: 2. As to his assuming that the authority of the Scriptures hath not determined these points; we say first that so farre as they are necessary, they are determined in Scripture. And 2. they are not so clearly determined in Scripture, because they are not so necessary. And yet we may say as St. Austin in such a case about intellectuall vision lib. 12 de gen ad literam cap. 25, Aliud est errare in his quae videt, aliud errare quia non videt. We do not erre in seing them in Scriptures, but we do erre because we do not see them. To end then, Scotus proposeth this question,As Mr. Hooker notes. utrùm cognitio supernaturalis necessaria, viatori sit sufficienter tradita in Sacra Scriptura; whether supernaturall knowledg necessary to a Travailler be sufficiently delivered in the Holy Scripture, and he concludes affirmatively. And so may we. 3. And for overplus, if these points were necessary to be referred to the determination of the Church, we could easily (dato non concesso) remove them from the Roman Court; and try them by the universal Church of all places and times; with which universal Church the Roman is not converted, and by which it is not like to be converted
CHAP. IV. The Church is not an infallible Iudge. The first Number is a Preface depending upon hopes of the former discourse: But to this we say nothing, save only that they shall never be rewarded for such hope, unless they can prove their word to be the Word of God.
FIrst those words Matthew 16.19. spoken to St. Peter, upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, allow the Church a security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious, that the gates of hell may prevaile against her. Ans. first though these words were spoken to St. Peter, yet it doth not hence follow that they were spoken of St. Peter exclusively to the rest. And then the Fathers, as before, understood it of his faith, not of his person: and of his faith objectively, not subjectively. And then 3. this respects not only the Church repraesentative, but the Church formall, against which principally the gates of hell do not prevaile; and so the words runne handsomly for the Church, that the words allow the Church security from ever admitting any doctrine so pernicious, that the gates of hell may prevaile against her. And therefore upon these considerations, we flatly deny to him the following words, that this promise made to the Church is that which mainely makes for my purpose, and surely that which follows [Page 927] makes for us, and may be a fourth answer to the former words; whether the Church be built upon St. Peter and his successours, or upon the faith of St. Peter, is not the thing I chiefely aime at: my aime is to find a Church built on a rock so strong that no errour shall ever overthrow it. So then if we assume that the invisible Church is such, we are agreed. Only my adversary seems to have more mind to retreat then to retract. But my adversary will have it to be understood of the representative Church, because he saies; he is now assured the Church shall never be a nest of errours, idolatrous, superstitious; wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient warrant: all or any of those things would bring her to the gates of hell; they being all damnable impieties. Ans. Now we shall see that this makes not for him. He was for the Roman Church; was he not? And yet will not here meddle how this concerns the Roman Church. then how doth this make for him? In the former treatise of his, this Text was meant of St. Peter and his successours: and now he will not meddle with what concernes St. Peter or his successours. Will these things here be reconciled till Tishby comes? 2. This makes for me; not only that he is not willing, as 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 [Page 928] 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 [Page 929] 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; [Page 200] in the supernumerary Canon of Scripture; in the point of Transubstantiation: in Communion under one kind: In their Counsails; as hath been shewed already; and in the point of merit Ex condigno, if the 30. Canon of the 6. Sess. of the Trent Council be compared with Rom. 8.18. The Canon of the Council speaks an Anathema to him that shall say, that the good works of a justified man do not vere mareri, truly merit increase of grace, consecution of eternal life, if they shall die in grace, and also increase of glory. The Canon of the Scripture saith, I account that ‘the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory wich shall be revealed: [...], do not weigh with.’ Now whether Scripture be our rule of faith or not, this must be an errour; since they acknowledge the Scripture to be true and infallible, For, whatsoever is contradictory to truth is false, this is contradictory to Scripture which is true. In this they have erred from the Latin Fathers in the sence of the word; from the Greek Fathers in the matter; and from the Scripture, which is our rule, and was the rule of the Church until a Church rose up which would not be ruled. And let them take notice too that sufferings are the best part of our obedience: and if they are not worthy, how should good actions merit. More errours of their Church might be named, but one errour with them is enough to contradict infallibility, and to discharge us of following their Church.
He saies then I quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues even Prudence herself. Ans. I think I may quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues. Prudence is one of the Cardinal vertues, in Morality: and one of the Cardinal vertues in Divinity. Prudence is the politique vertue; and so is their Religion a politique Religion. And if a man may proceed prudently in the choice of his Religion, then he doth not beleive first, and then understand; as yet the vulgar Latin reads that text; but we must understand first, and then beleive. Prudence is a Moderatress of actions; [Page 201] not a mistress of Faith. And how doth Prudence consist with implicite Faith, which believes what it doth not know? Prudence is a vertue of reason, which is contradistinguished to Faith. And if we may proceed prudently in the chusing of our Religion, then we may well exercise the judgment of discretion in matters of Faith, and therefore are not simply bound to take upon trust whatsoever their Church obtrudes.
He goes on, Then you conclude all the force my former Argument hath, it hath from Scripture. Is not my Argument the better for this. Yes, If the Argument were grounded in Scripture, it were better upon that ground, than upon any other, but this Argument is not good, because it is not taken from Scripture. Scripture is the best Argument in Thesi; but in Hypothesi, it is not well applied. We like it well that he goes about to prove the Church by Scripture, which is the highest principle: But let them not give us such a sense of Scripture which belongs not to their cause, unless against it.
In the next number which he nameth the fourth (but then it seems the third is lost by the way) he saith I stumble again at the senses of damnable errours. Ans. No,N. 4. For I discourse of it by a Dilemma, or disjunctive, which will take in either sense: but he is not willing to move this stone again; therefore he stumbles at it.
Another Text he builds upon St. Matthew 18.17.N. 5. ‘If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a publican, or a Heathen.’ Upon this he [...]mes an argument, God Commandeth us to hear the Church and obey her: but no kinde of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods command. Ans. I am glad he hath any such forme of discourse, which would more clearly and handsomely shorten the debate, we therefore answer to it; passing by all discepiation about the sense of the Church there, or the quality of the cause. We say then, if he understands the major so as that God absolutely, universally commandeth [Page 932] us to heare and obey the Church then the conclusion were good, and we could not erre in following the Church. But so the minor is denied. God hath not absolutely and universaly commanded us so to heare and obey the Church. If he understands the major specificatively and in things lawfull, then we can grant the minor; but then the conclusion will not be universall, will be peccant [...] and so not conclude contradictorily to us, who do not dispute here against all obedience to the Church, negatively, as if we would have none; but against all obedience affirmatively, as being not bound in faith to all commands.
And therefore need he not come in with a reliefe, to succour his discourse, by saying from me, it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not damnable. This true, but not well applied to me unles he can prove Gods command for absolute obedience in whatsoever the Church proposeth. But as this is true, so it is pertinent for me against him, that though the universal Church cannot erre in points necessary, where errour would be damnative, yet could we not be bound universally to follow upon that account; because no man can be bound to assent to an errour though not damnative.
Neither doth it follow from the Text therfore meerely and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held a publican or a Heathen, Unles he understands by not hearing, not submitting, if he doth not understand it so, it doth not follow: if he does understand it so, this is not to his purpose: because though we may be bound to submit to the Church, yet we may not be bound to believe the Church: these are two things which he should have distinguished. Therefore cannot he prove from hence that the Church cannot erre. He is to be accounted an Heathen or publican upon not submiting to the Church in regard of authority; not upon not assenting, because of infallibility. And therefore though we be all bound simply to [Page 933] avoid excommunication: yet if the case were put that we must assent to an errour or else be excommunicated: we take the censure, and leave the errour; and if they will not have proviso with a clave non errante, for the censures of the Church, then what condition was Pope Honorius in, who was excommunicated, as before; If God binds against errour, and the Church, as we suppose, bind to it, we can say presently, that the Church cannot absolve without God, but God can absolve without the Church. And this answereth the next verse in the Gospell, as he produceth it.
But the former Answer he would take off in the next words by an argument. To swerve from Gods word is to erre. But this Text proveth that the (the Church) cannot erre. Ans. The major is indeed true: but the Text doth not prove the minor; therefore it is false; because he saith the text proveth it.
And indeed if she could, the meerely not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgment a publican and heathen. Ans. This is denied. Refractorines exposeth thereunto, without acknowledgment of infallibility. And yet am I still of this opinion, that that Text concernes not matters of faith; but of trespass betwen Brother and Brother, and therefore that Text is not to his purpose. This and more he saith nothing to here.
But yet I followed him, and said that a man is not bound to believe the censure is just unles it apeare to be so. To this he saies, this last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine. For the unanimous opinion of Learned men is, that a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unles the contrary appeares evident. Ans, first then this determination of the case by Learned men supposeth that a thing may appear evident against the superiours censure or command. So that by consequence they have the unanimous opinion of Leanred men against them in two points, first that a thing may be evident without the [Page 204] proposal of the Church: for it may be evident against it. 2. Then that the Church may make an injust censure or command. But for his opinion he nameth three Learned men, Chillingworth, Hooker, Laud. So he: as to the first, Mr. Chillingworth; he hath nothing for him in his 108 nu. ‘For he maketh use of this rule, [In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superiour, nor cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees’ [But how is this applied to our case? Indeed it was his best course not to apply it. Let them then note that this he speakes is in cases of uncertainty, namely about things of question: but we are ultimately upon points necessary. And then 2. He speaks against casting off obedience: but we are upon assent of judgment. And then 3. The rule he useth speakes that we should not publiquely oppose his decrees; but we are upon the negative only, whether he may not suspend his opinion. And hence the Author discourseth, that we may leave them, we may cast them off, and oppose ‘them, when we are certaine, as protestants were that what they command God doth countermand.’ And for the second, as he nameth him; I think, all things considered, he hath little from him for his use. As the scribe at least mistooke the quotation: so the Author I think mistook the man. In the places quoted [pag. 310. 311. n. 110.] there is nothing like. It is true that excellent Author had great cause to urge convenent obedience to humane lawes: but he denies intuitive obedience to any law but of God. And therefore if he and Mr. Chillingworth be joined in the testimony, that which answered one may answer the other. And further, if they will take p. 110. And so on for n. 110. They may finde enough to satisfie them of his opinion, that he held Scripture a sufficient rule in matters necessary; and therefore the obedience he urgeth must be in thinges of order; which is extrinsecall to our debate and not blind neither, as p. 110.
The third Authority is rightly quoted but not rightly [Page 205] applied out of that excellent book; for it speaks expresly of externall obedience: we are upon internall. He speaks for peace: my adversary should apply it to faith. He speaks it as to private persons: my adversary should vltimately apply it to the Church nationall. That which followes is a cavill, that then the private man, when all comes to all, is the last judge; to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred. Ans. The private man is no judge authoritative to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred, but exerciseth for himself the judgment of discretion; "as being to be perswaded in his own minde as the Apostle speaks. And thus much must be allowed by my adversary who lately asserted prudence to be of use in chusing Religion. Yea if Prudence be tolerated in things of Faith: Sapience is to be commended, which refers to the highest principles; and those are of Scripture. And though it be some ingenuous prudence to preferre the judgment of a General Council or the Church, as to the suspension of my opinion against them: yet surely will it be sapience to rest my faith in principles of faith. Therefore this and much more of this discourse comes not home to the question, whether God hath bound me to give absolute assent to the definitions of the Church; and to believe their commands to be just, eo ipso, because theirs: [...].
Neither is it impossible that a General Council should not see it. There is a double impossiblity, simple and Physical: and then Moral. The Simple impossiblity would make Faith; but such is denied. The Moral, If it were granted could not make such a Faith as they stand for, namely an infallible assent. But the Moral impossibility which is no more than a great difficulty, is not to be yeilded neither, since the Trent Council. They might as well not see that which was Evident, as they did see that which was not Evident: Communion under both kindes was Evident in Scripture, and the practise of the Church: yet notwithstanding they would see what was not Evident, [Page 936] Communion-under one kind. And therefore least Communion under both kindes should seem more Evident, Bellarmin prudently informes that some of their learned men would not construe the 2. of St. Iohn of Sacramental participation.
And the ground he goes upon is sandy, that which is truly Evident will of it self appear to be so, or at least to the most judicious, upright, and best instructed Prelats of the Church. Ans. This may appear to them, de facto not so. Were not the Trent Fathers so? And yet they did not see what was Evident in the point of the Communion, and in some other points too, as some of their own Religion did think, as we have it in the History of the Trent Council. 2. What a case should the poor people be in, since populus non distinguit, and yet they must compare the most judicious, and most upright, and best instructed Prelats. Thirdly, Take the Fathers of all ages and places; and then their Doctrines will not abide the test, as hath been made good to them by Bishop Jewel. And therefore their Doctrines are not Evident by their own Principle, because not Evident to them. And then fourthly, somewhat Evident to them the Romans have cashiered, Infant Communion, the Millenary opinion, trine immersion, standing up in prayer, therefore they had best betake themselves to more than humane assistance, namely, from the Holy Ghost.
His debate afterwards about the consideration of the cause of the Censure, will come to little, if it be considered that the act of not hearing the Church, is ambiguous; and may relate either to the non-assent, or to the contempt. The former doth not simply expose him to the Censure in Heaven: the latter may. And if he understood his own terms, he must rather take them of the latter, because he speaks of an act of not hearing. For the non-assent is negative to an act; and so is the Greek considerable [...] this is it which makes him truely guilty of not hearing the Church.
That which follows in way of concession, is destructive of his building; for he grants an errability of the key, in which case the Censure is not ratified in Heaven. So then, how shall we know whether any be truely guilty. For as the Church cannot be infallible to us at all, to believe it, if not infallible in all, as Mr. Knot argues; and my Adversary too, if he denies the distinction of damnative errours: so it cannot bind infallibly in any, if not in all, though there be a distance betwixt Faith and fact, the proportion is the same. And yet again, if they will divide here by affirming infallibility in Faith, fallibility in Fact; why do they urge this Text, which respects the latter?
And therefore that which follows. And so the Church cannot erre in denouncing excommunication against such a person, in dependance upon the premises, is as much as to say, the Church cannot erre, when the key doth not erre. Yet it might have erred in sensu divis [...], which is sufficient for our purpose, because our dispute is upon the point of possibility [...], as Aristotle said: It is necessary that that it be while it be; yet was it not therefore necessary to be before it was: for that destroys the distinction of things contingent from things necessary. And therefore what follows hereupon, if I should answer he would account necessary to be answered, when it is not.
At the end of this Section he saith, You highly wrong St. Athanasius to say he did not hear the Church. Ans. I should be very loath to be truely guilty of this: and surely, if he grants that the Church may be mistaken in the fact, he may be mistaken in this Censure; which he should have proceeded in secundum allegata et probata. I said this, St. Athanasius did differ from the rest of the Church, when the whole world did groan under Arrianisme. So he did not hear the Church, as differing in opinion, though it is not said that he did not hear the Church, as disobeying the Censure.
Here he supposeth that upon the virtue of former Principles he may conclude of the Church, No, She cannot erre in an errour not damnable. No? Let that which was formerly granted be compared with this, and we shall conclude the contrary. To excommunicate a person who is not to be excommunicated, is to erre. The Church may excommunicate a person not to be excommunicated; Therefore the minor is as good as confessed by him, because the Church may be mistaken in the fact. Nay he saith it in terms [and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact.]
He proceeds, Hence that common Doctrine of Antiquity, that it is not possible to have a just cause of separating from the Church. Ans. Besides the nullity of this upon the want of a true ground, as before; he doth misreport the axiom; or else he must distinguish of Separating. There is no just cause of Schism; for, the proposition hath in it [...]; because if there be a just cause, it is not Schism, but though every Schism is a Separation, every Separation is not Schism. Take then separation in specie for Schism, so it may be true; but a Separation from a Church imposing errours in Faith, and things unlawful in practice is not without a just cause; and therefore is it not Schism. It is not without a just cause by his former confession just now in those words. So men should be bound to assent unto an errour, which is impossible. And again this is to be understood of Separating from the Catholique Church, or from a particular Church for that order wherein it agrees with the Catholique. But this is not our case; for the Roman is but a particular Church; and we separated upon Catholique Principles, that so we might hold union with the Catholique Church. And then again there is a difference betwixt a national reformation, and a private Separation. And therefore yet the distinction is not disabled, namely of separating from the errours and not from the Church, unless it were better proved that the Church is secured from all errour; which that text doth not prove. Then goes he [Page 939] on to take away somewhat I said to the text in my first and fifth answer to it. He claps them together, and would make me to conclude thus, this maketh nothing for the Authority of the universal Church. Ans. Let them remember again (for Aquinas tells us that we cannot forget natural Principles) that the whole is greater than the part. I allow much to a particular Church in correspondence with the Universal (therefore little to their Church.) And if I do reply that this text belongs also to particular Churches, then this doth redound to the honour of the Universal Church. And that this doth belong to particular Prelats to excommunicate, he himself doth confess in this Section. Therefore must he conclude that I conclude for the Universal Church. And yet moreover, in all this long gloss upon the text, how little have we had of that upon which all in this discourse turns, namely whether Authority of excommunication (be it in the Universal or a particular Church) respects not formally the contempt, not the non-assent. Let them speak less, or more to the purpose.
And yet again he would drive it on in a loose way, that we have a command from God to hear the Church absolutely and universally.
To this purpose he saies, Those who disobey the judges, disobey the Common-wealth: so generally speaking, those who disobey the Prelats of the particular Church, disobey the universal Church, commanding her to proceed according to her Decrees, Canons, and definitions. Ans. Here is not much, and for them less. A Common-wealth is a term ambiguous; and may be taken strictly or largely: strictly in the form; largely as including head and members. And in this large sense may be considered with more respect to the Body, or to the Head; in confuso, or in capite. If he takes it in the strict sence; it is not to any purpose; because there is a different reason of laws in the Common-wealth and in the Church: For in a Common-wealth so, Laws [Page 940] proceed from them as the efficient thereof: but in the Church, truths and duties do come from God; and therefore in such cases the disobedience reflects upon God. Now the case we dispute upon is in necessary truths and duties. If he understand a Common-wealth largely, and then with more particular repute to the people, the disobedience to the judges doth not reflect upon them, unless objectively and consequently, because though they are not their Judges by way of Authority, yet they are their Judges, in way of End, for their good. If it be taken with more relation to the head, whose judges they are by authoritative commission it is true that the disobedience to the Judge doth redound upon him: but here is difference betwixt them, for particular Prelats do not depend upon the universal Church, as Judges do upon the Head of a Common-wealth; because Bishops have their Authority by divine right, which was contended for hotly in the Trent Council, and had proceeded affirmatively had not the Roman Court bandied against it. And then also the matter of disobedience we speak of is from God, not the universal Church: but the matter of Civil disobedience to the Judge is from the Head. And then again we do not speak of disobedience positive (which my Adversary doth instance in) but in obedience, which is negative. And then again particular Prelats are not so bound in things of particular order, as the people are bound to the Laws of a particular Nation. And also then this will redound to the Adversaries prejudice; for the particular Prelats of their Church have not proceeded according to the Canons, Decrees, and definitions of the universal Church, as hath been shewed. And also this is against them, because then my Adversary confesseth that this text under debate is competible fairly to particular Churches; and therefore they have no reason to appropriate it to themselves. And so upon the whole matter we can say as much in a due respect to the Catholique Church, as [Page 941] they do here, and yet hold our own. So then he doth not contradict here. And yet again he is importunate to prove that disobedience to the Church at last redounds to Christ and God, out of the 16. of Sam. 8. ‘they have not rejected thee but me.’ Ans. Surely they had better have supposed this truth than proved it. First, and again, we are not upon disobedience but inobedience: not upon rejecting Authority which God had vested in Samuel, but upon suspending assent to a truth proposed. And then 2. In the time of Samuel it was a plain [...] and the people had Laws and Ordinances given them by divine immediate direction: but it is yet to be proved, whether what Churches do enjoyn do come from God immediatly to the Prelats. And therefore since that case had contempt in it, the discourse suits not our question.
And Christ to his disciples (the first Prelats of the Church) he that despiseth you despiseth me. Ans. Those Disciples were not in his sense Prelats; for the Apostles were the Prelates, but these whom Christ here spake to, were the seventy two Disciples or Elders. Therefore he mistakes in the quality of the persons. Secondly this was by Christ applied to ministerial acts of preaching; these other Prelats seldome do; yet if they did, here were a mistake in the quallity of the matter, which with us is in point of jurisdiction.
The main Text, then is, St. Matt. 23.2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses Chair, all whatsoever therefore they say unto you, to keep and do. He saies here, Mark these most ample words, all therefore whatsoever. Ans. we have marked them; and yet cannot this Text be understood reduplicatively & without exception, because the Pharisees did teach errours. He saies then, many of them publiquely did teach errours though not by publique authority. Ans, So then they did teach errours, and publiquely. This which is affirmative is enough for us: let them prove the negative for them. But this is strange, that they should teach and teach publiquely, and not by publique authority. If [Page 942] they did teach, they did teach upon authority, though not with that authority as Christ. If they did teach publiquely, then they had publique authority. And doth not he seem to profess that authority was vested in them by a lawful succession of Moses? And did my adversary thinke that they could sit in Mose's chaire, and yet not have publique authority?He calls them the lawfull successours of Moses. But it may be they were not in the chaire, when they did teach errours, no? How then is it said, the Scribes and Pharisees set in Moses chair? And how then did they teach publiquely? But they were not in the chair of Moses, when they did teach errours. Will they say so? But in their sense they were in the chair of Moses, because they understand thereby authority: if they doe not, they are taken; for then they must understand it of teaching the doctrine of Moses, and then by consequent, all whatsoever must be understood as symbolical thereunto. And if they would understand it thus, we would also subscribe this proposition, that when they did teach errours they were not in the chair of Moses. As namely when they did teach for doctrines the traditions of men. Alas if this should be applied to the Pope in his chair, how should the people be able to distinguish betwixt teaching errours publiquely (which my adversary doth acknowledge) and teaching them publiquely with publique authority, which he denies? They who formerly have told us that it is so easie a way to find by the Church to Heaven, do now say that which shews it is an hard matter to find the Church teaching by publique authority. One being imperfect in sight asked his servant, whether there was not such a thing in the window: and the Servant asked the Master whether there were such a window: they tell us that there is in the Church infallibility taught by publique authority: and others aske the question where is that Church, and when shall we know when it teacheth so.
He tells us that they cannot do any thing against Scripture, when they proceed by way of defining with publique authority. Yea, but we must have another infallibility to assure us [Page 943] that they do now thus define. Let them infallibly define when the Church doth infallibly define, since all good discourse begins with a definition. And then let them tell us by what method we may come to the knowledge of this proposition, that the Rulers of the Jews condemned Christ by private authority.
Neither is that to be swallowed,Acts. 3.17. that the Church to the full hath now as much reason to be heard as the old jewish Church then. For if he takes the Church here for the Church universall, it were more likely indeed what he saies: but how is that possible to make an address to them upon all occasions, unles there were a standing Representative. But if he takes the Church here for a particular Church by way of an Individuum vagum, or determinately, of the Roman, it were indeed possible to make with more expedition address to such: but then it would be shewed to be likely that any particular Church of any one denomination should have such priviledges annexed to it, as the old Iewish Church had; especially if we take in into the account of the old Iewish Church those extraordinary revelations of God immediately made to Moses, and the Preists and the Prophets, whereof Malachi was the last. Indeed such an infallibility only will serve their turn, but till they prove it, [...]. And as the Synagogues authority was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard only in points of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother, but was to be extended to all whatsoever they should order: so you cannot (without depressing the authority of Christs Church who had a better covenant established upon better promises, Hebr. 8.6.) hinder her power from being extended to all whatsoever she shall order. Ans. This und [...]es all. I take the [...] of my adversary for my major proposition: then I assume, what proportion the Synagogue had to the whole Iewish Church a particular Church hath to the universal Church: therefore every particular Church is not limited in authority, but, as he saith of the Synagogue, that its authority was not [Page 944] limited so as to be obeyed and heard &c. And then what need of an universal Church, & Bishop & Council? Indeed such a power would be requisite for the Roman Church because they cannot stretch it beyond a particular Church. But this spoyles all his discourse in his four first Chapters which he saies he intended as for the universal Church. But what use of this when a particular may sooner and more easily decide all, having all authority to command and to be obeyed in all things which she shall order? Thus not only the five Patriarchates were independent of any one, and had all Iurisdiction within their own divisions; but other Churches nationall, might be independent; and independents might be Churches. And since ten men with the Jew made a people, and a people made a capacity of a Synagogue, why may not the Church of England have an Authority not limited, &c. And what need then of running to another Church for more authority?
But neither is his Text in the Hebrewes well understood or else not well aplied in his [...]. For the establishment of a better Covenant upon better promises is not certainly intended to have respect to the visible Church for discipline: but to the invisible Church for salvation. It respects Christ as the Great High Priest to save his Church by the sacrificing of himself once upon the Cross for us; not as King of his Church by way of an externall policy, as if the Goverment of his Church were part of his Kingdome, and of his Gospell. If so they give the right hand of fellowship to the other Disciplinarian.
But also he takes it ill that the text should be limited to case of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother; and he thinks rather it should belong to the cases of heresie which is a trespass committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church, yea St. Thomas calls Schism of which heresie is alwaies guilty, the highest crime aagainst the whole Community. Ans. It is one thing to say what the text intends; another to say what it may be by [Page 945] discourse accommodated to. The direct respect of the text in the ordinary sense of the letter, is clearly carried to case of trespass betwixt Brother and Brother. And the Pontifician by his principles and use, is ingaged to the sense of the letter prinipally. But 2. dato non concesso, that it should also respect case of Heresie, notwithstanding also that the terms [let him be to thee a Heathen or a Publican we rather referre to the Jewish Church than the Christian] yet cannot he have from hence what he would, namely the Churches infallibility of Censure in points of Faith. For though the Church did infallibly know on which side the truth did stand in every point of Faith, and therefore what was opposite thereunto (for [...], as he said) and therefore that such a doctrine was to be condemned as Heretical; yet since, though the Church do proceed secundum allegata et probata, it may be mistaken in the fact, (as he confesseth) it may erre in the Censure as to a particular person; and how then is such a person bound to subscribe to such a Censure as just? because he cannot be bound to assent to that which is false, as he also lately confessed. It is true in civil causes though the sentence be injust, I may and must pay the amercement, there being no Law against the course of Law; and so also in Ecclesiastical cases, he that is in justly excommunicated must abide the Censure; but all the Authority under Heaven can never make a man beleive in his Conscience that it is a just Censure, when he knows himself not to be guilty of the fact, namely publishing of an heretical Doctrine; and therefore all that can be exacted by man in this case [...] passive obedience; which the Person may yield, though the Conscience doth not yeild that it is a just Censure. So that the text is yet preserved in its integrity against binding the Conscience to believe whatsoever is done by the Church to be right and just.
After this, he would winde himself off gradually from [Page 946] supposing any infallibility of particular Churches, that so all at length might be ascribed to their Church in solidum; for [...], as he said. And the Authority he would have to fall upon the Pope and a Council: yet he expresseth one Head of the Church and the supream Prelat of the Church. So then; Before, when there was a professed occasion to dispute the point whether the Pope were Head of the Church, he was shie and cautious and uncategorical: now by the by, and under the winde he can assert it so that he may not be bound to prove it. We see then what reason they have to afford Prudence a good place in Religion, Nullum numen ab est si sit prudentiarum.
And the main exercise of Ecclesiastical authority, the key is laid upon his shoulder, He is bound to use the fullness of his power to suppress the arising heresie.
Now surely they are bound ingenuously to speak out whether they mean this fulness of his Authority, of all the Authority he hath, or of all Authority that the Church hath. There is a fulness of the Fountain, there is a fulness of the Vessel. Do they allow him the fulness of the Vessel? So indeed the Trent Council seemed rather in a good part thereof to incline, when they urged so much to have the title of the Council to be established The Representative of the whole Church: for had this proceeded, his power had been sunk in their power. But if he be the Head of the Church, my Adversary must allow him the fulness of the Fountain; then the controversie is determined betwixt the Jesuits, and the Sorbonists; and the latter are cast in the suit. But then, what need of a Council towards infallibility, when he hath all the Authority in himself, as being the [...]? And then my Adversary hath not pleased the Court and the Jesuite in joyning the Council as partners in the Authority. Nor do the words ensuing bear good respect to the Pope, as Head of the Church, namely, that he may forbid (if he [Page 947] feareth danger in the Doctrine) that no such Doctrine may be published until the Church shall think it fit. Are not these diminuent terms of the Head (indeed almost comminuent, if we may say so) as if the Head of the universal Church, the ordinary Pastour, and Vicar of Christ, Successor of St. Peter, could not presently see that there was danger in heretical Doctrine, or could not see whether it were heretical doctrine until the Church shall think it fit. I had thought the Pope had been an Independent; and should not have depended upon the Church for a final resolution at a point heretical. And if the Church must meet in a Council to consider of it, and all Popes be as disaffected to a Council, as some were to the Trent Council, what shall become of the people in this danger of heresie? I had thought a Council had been but the vicar of Christ His Counsail, and though he did condiscend so far to make use of their Counsail, yet he could do all alone by his own Authority. We heard before that particular Prelats had Authority not limited: and must my Adversaries Supreme Prelat be bound to wait for a General Council?
And then all must be as St. Paul saith, Heb. 13.17. Obey their Prelats; So he, Ans. This he means of Prelats not in confuso, but in conventu. And to these infallibility should be annexed. So then, Those Prelats who are here meant are infallible. Particular Prelats are here meant: therefore they are infallible; and so there will be no need either of a Supreme Prelat, or of a Council. And that particular Prelats are here meant, we need not prove to the Pontificians who take too much notice that there Epistles were written but upon particular occasions, and for particular times. And therefore this being written to the Hebrews should not by that account concern us Yea if it were written with an intention for Prelats in a Council, it must be written for them per saltum, not for the present times; but for above 300. years after. 2. This relates to those who did watch for their Souls, which being [Page 948] put per se is to be understood of those that teach the Word; and so it corresponds to the 7. ver. where those that are set over them are specified by teaching the Word. The obedience then there injoyned respects those as teaching the the Word, not formally as exercising authority of Jurisdiction. And therefore that Text is not here well applied.
Thus far the power of the Supreme Prelat is extended by the consent of the whole Church. Ans. We see then their own differences to be such as that they may be ashamed to upbraid us with our differences, and we not ashamed to be upbraided. Can my Adversaries exactly point out the maximum quod sic of the power of the Supreme Prelat of the universal Church? Must he that is by them acknowledged to be the Pillar of the Church have his Pillars set him, beyond which he must not budge? Tell it not to the Canonists, and the Courtiers of Rome. As Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the Sea where it stints in the flote makes in a similitude a Line, which God hath set it that it should not pass: So have my Adversaries set a Line to the Roman Sea; hitherto it may go, by the consent of the whole Church. So then the members may appoint the Head what operations and how far it shall perform, and the Head shall not be onely influxive upon them, but they rather upon it. This opinion will make Popes shie of Councils, if he hath his power extended by their consent. For they do not mean the consent of the whole Church to be of the confusaneous multitude; do they? if they do, then the Church in this sense shall be the first subject of Ecclesiastical power. Yea, If they also mean it of the Church in a Council, how is the Pope successor of St. Peter, when the Pope must be limited by the Church; St. Peter. as they say, was Prince of the Apostles immediately from Christ. And surely according to this reckning Bellarmins distinction will come to naught, who saies the power of Kings is not by divine right, but by the consent [Page 949] of the people: but the Popes power is, for it comes not from the Church, but Christ, as in his 3. b. de verb. Dei cap. 9. And then he is not the Rock and foundation of the Church; but the Church of him, and so the spiritual Monarchy must be slighted. How far is this from that Italian who presented a book to Paulus the fifth with this inscription, PaULo Vto. Vice Deo, out of which one picked the number of the beast, 666.
But therefore my Adversary goes at the Spanish rate, very suspensively, in omnem eventum; as being disposed to a pause betwixt the affirmative and the negative; and he saith, Now though the Supreme Head of the Church be as infallible as St. Peter was, and so on in a long speech. Well, but doth this affirm? or is it a meer supposition, which doth ponere nihil? He hath carried the Pope up to the clouds, and there he staies: but let them come out of the clouds, and tell us plainly, whether we must take a cloud for Iuno. Such irresolution doth not become infallibility. He seems to make him as infallible as St. Peter, because he should be Supreme Head of the Church; (and yet St. Peter was not Supreme Head of the Church, if the rest of the Apostles be included in the term [Church] as members) and yet he must not be as infallible as St. Peter; because cases of difficulty must be referred to the Council. It follows, yet if he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared heresie, if it be so; or to be imbraced, if it be fitting, and proposed to all Christendome; then is the true time of calling a General Council, and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture. We are now step by step soberly mounted to the Soveraign Authority of the Church in a Representative. Ans. 1. What needs all this trouble if he be as infallible as St. Peter? and why do they say that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his Doctrine by St. Peters Authority, should there not have been a Council called then as well? According to them St. Peters infallibility confirmed St. Pauls Doctrine: the Pope [Page 950] according to them is Successour of St. Peter in his infallibility to all effects and purposes as Ruler of the Church, therefore he may do it, and frustra fit per plures also. 2. Note we here that it is to be the true time of calling a Council upon debate of a point heretical, which respects Articles of Faith: but we have been often told by our Adversaries that we are to have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies emergent. Now if there be not a Council to be called but for decision of Articles of Faith; as to their's we have lesse need, since he that is an Heretique is [...] as the Apostle speaks. And therefore he needed not to foreclude the peoples contending in allegations of Scriptures; for surely Scripture may be alleaged without contention, and if it happens, sapiens non curat de accidentalibus. And so also the Council may contend in allegation of Scripture; and therefore they should not alleage Scripture. Yea also we may soberly contend that in articles of Faith there needs not be any other contention, since they are more plainly delivered in Scripture, than that we must stay for a General Council to be established in the belief of them. Blessed be God, we are better provided for in articles of Faith, than to stand in such necessity of a General Council; which when such will be, and how we shall know it is such (according to them) we must know by another General Council, and that by another, and so in infinitum: since we know nothing infallibly but by the infallible authority of the Church; and that in a General Council. We will then take that for our Law, whereby the Council must Judge, since the matters are plain which are great: and about other things small, the Judges will not meet. Lex non curat de minimis. ‘Let Hiero conclude for himself, from hence forward whatsoever Archimedes saith, it must be believed.’
But it seems it is a book case: and example we have hereof by the practice of the Apostles in the 15. of the Acts; Though the Apostles were all infallible in their doctrine, yet they [Page 951] could not determin that grave question without calling a Council. Ans. first, if those termes [could not] attend an absolute negation of power, they are denied. For they that were infallible in their doctrine could have severally determined that controversie, as we take power absolutely, as well as St. Peter confirmed St. Pauls doctrine, according to them. But he seemes to mean it in a qualified sense after the manner of Aquinas distinction of necessity: therefore thus he, for this is necessary for the better conviction of heretickes; fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort, and further comfort of the whole Church. This end of calling a Council upon such a necessity, I suppose he reflects to the Council of the Apostles; as if the sense should be they could not conveniently and upon the supposition of such ends, determine that grave question without calling a Council: but then we are not under an absolute necessity of a Council. And untill this be proved, my adversaries have done nothing: for a necessity of convenience of a Council will not serve their purpose because we can grant it. But 2. we say this example is not for his turn; because this Council was called upon a question about things in their nature not necessary: but we are upon the debate of the absolute necessity of councils in and for things necessary, not things of scandall only, and yet again; 3. As it is commonly noted they in their Councils cannot conclude their determinations as in that Council of the Apostles (it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to u [...]) because those Apostles were infallible in their discourse as well a in their conclusions; but those who are now members of Councils, are confessed by stapleton to be fallible in their discourse and how then shall we be sure that they are infallible in the conclusion, unles they can prove that though the discourse be not rationall, the conclusion will yet be propheticall. And yet 4. The Apostles themselves proceeded to the determination of this question by principles of Scripture: therefore Scripture is the highest principle to raise faith even in things [Page 952] of controversie. And this concludes against them who make the Church in businesses of faith to be the highest principle. And therefore also whatsoever binds the Christian faith hath its obligation by vertue of Scripture. So then nothing he saies doth sufficiently render that sense or use he makes of that Text, Dic ecclesiae. And yet he hath not then found (though he does Thrasonically say so) a Iudge in matters of faith, a living Iudge, an infallible Iudge excluding all possibility of errour. We can helpe them to finde Judges dicendo pluraliter: but such a Judge as he speaks of here, he hath no more hope to find then need to seek. And yet such a Judge he must have for the justification of Christ's law in the former Text, otherwise Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so haynous a crime not to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all: he obliged all to obey and hear her, therefore she cannot lead us into an errour. Ans. I think we should not have had so many words about such assent if they had not more need thereof then the Text, or Christ of their defence; they have more necessity of Christs justification then he of theirs. His words above have two formes, one in an hypotheticall way, the other in way of an Enthymem; I deny the consequence in both; and to them both I suppose one proposition, and that is this, Christs command to obey doth not inferre impossibility of errour in the Church. Simply it is therefore false what he would have to be consequentiall. To hear the Church therefore hath two things in it; one act which is internall, and that is to give assent to what the Church shall order; the other an externall act of submission, the former may be denied, and therefore she may erre, the latter may be due and therefore not to be denied.
And consequently his infallibility of knowledge of this point is not so grea [...] as of those points which are delivered by Scripture, namely not understanding it de facto; because his knowledge of points delivered by Scripture is, de industria, small; but de posse, his knowledge of points of faith delivered by [Page 953] Scripture may be greater then his knowledg of this, because it is not delivered by Scripture.
So that for his Creed, I say as the Frenchmen proverbially are wont, il ne point damne qui ne le coit, he is not damned that doth not believe it▪ there is difference betwixt standing up to what is proposed, and standing out against the Church, in contempt. Absolute belief will then be rational, when moral assurance, which yet is not alwaies to be had, makes Faith.
And when he hath proved the assumption, that the church of Rome is only this Church, and by manifest consequence: then the Pope shall be no usurper; and yet not infallible neither. We deny the Postulate with a contradiction because we can deny the Church's definition without a contradiction.
Then in the seventh and eight numbers he useth plain-evasions. In the seventh he tells me that he doth not use that method which I tell him he should have used, in some favor to me, when I come to use this very method, I do foresee that it will so galde you, and he saies, I would have the burthen shifted off to the other shoulder to avoide present trouble. Ans. these are his Rhodomontadoes. Is not the method a priori more rationall? If he can prove the Church infallible, and absolute authority to belong to it, our obedience must follow▪ but since obedience is ambiguous and distinguishable, though obedience in some respect be due yet not on that part which inferres infallibility; but on that part, which respects authority, as we take authority for power. 2. There was nothing said by him formerly which I have not fully answered; and now the reinforcements, but it became him to say so, who was more pinched. And how will he quits himself in this method we are to see in th [...] [...]2. numb. And in the eight numb▪ here he tells me the reason why he saies nothing to St. Austins authority produced by me, namely lest he should lose his labour, but I know a better reason because he will find too much labour to answer it.
And as quick dispatch the ninth Paragr. deserves. For he doth not offer any answer to any reason in mine, but here snaps in order to a vindication of the Text Matt. 20.7. for his cause. He took exceptions at our translation should keep knowledge, he renders it shall keep. I defended the translation by the possibility of that sense in the Hebrew because it hath no formal subjunctive: By the scope of the Text, because they are blamed for their default. He persists against our translation, because all originals (he means all copies; or indeed all translations he should mean, because of what follows) speak clearly in the future as the Hebrew doth: and also the Greek and the Latin, which two want not the Subjunctive Mood. Ans. But first he supposeth that which is in question that the Hebrew is to be understood as in the future. Secondly other translations with him are fallible, save only the Latin; therefore the other conclude not. Thirdly the translations may be understood in compliance with the Hebrew, which is frequent also in the New Testament, with the Greek: and therefore if the Hebrew may be so construed, so may the others by an Hebraism. Therefore if our English translation were faulty herein, yet must it be otherwise convinced of a fault in this: Especially since Fourthly, We give good reason why it should thus be construed, namely by the Scope; Intelligentia dicti sumitur ex scopo loquendi. And therefore may we well with Iunius and Tremellius hold our English, which in general, whatsoever he saies of it from some of our own, hath not so many faults in it, as Isidor Clarius found in their Latin, 8000.
I asked him, is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome. He saies, I told you it was not. But why then should the other Text about the Scribes and Pharisees by proportion prove their infallibility? and not this, since we have here the Priest in a singularity, if not signanter? Well then by his own consent, this Text is not sufficient for him: for it concerns private Priests; and they are as fallible as translations. [Page 955] Onely the private Priests may know the sense of the Church better, then the sense of Scripture by the translations, as he speaks in more words to no more purpose. Ans. First when we have the sense of the Church, are we sure that that sense is true? though it be the true sense of the Church, is the sense of the Church true? this is yet in question. There is no question but the sense of Scripture is true, whether the sense of the Church is true is [...]. Secondly, Let the plain places of Scripture in things necessary be compared with the difficulties in the Interpretation of the Trental Definitions; and then let them judge whether we had not better stand to Translations, which are made by a Nation or approved, or else to the opinion of private Priests, for though her Doctrine be so carefully published amongst all intelligent men: yet this is to be understood materially in the words, not formally in the sense. And so the Scripture is published amongst all intelligent men, in the former way, And if the people be not intelligent men too, how shall they know whether the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church be communicated to them by learned men?
But the Priests of the old Law were to direct the people, which were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures. And the Priests of the new Law doubtless excel those of the old Law. This in the substance of it we have had before, and have taken away the grounds thereof. And besides it is false that the people were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures. What saith St. Luke of the Bereans? If they examined by the Scriptures what Doctrine St. Paul taught, were not they to be directed by their own readings of the Scripture. And why did the Jews apply their children to the Law from five years of age? And why did St. Paul take notice of Timothy to be trained up in the Scriptures from his childhood? and why is the man said to be blessed, who amongst other things, meditates in the Law day and night? Is this to be understood [Page 956] onely of the Priests. 2. Therefore though they went to the Priests in doubtful cases; yet not for ordinary knowledg in things necessary; therefore this is not compared ad idem to our case. Thirdly, the Priests were bound to direct the people by the Law, were they not? To the Law and to the Testimonies. And not by Tradition. So are the Priests of the new Law, (as he calls them) to direct the people by the Scripture, not by Tradition, or determinations of the Church, unless according to Scripture.
Therefore his question of the case in a matter of doubt, which he compares his proceeding in with the old way of the Jews, Numb. 6. comes not home to our business, and therefore we may send it home again; and yet not for fear of not being able to answer what he is not willing to urge, that when in the upshot, the question should be drawn up to the High Priest, he who would not hear him was deservedly put to death, Deut. 17. He leaves this for us to take down our selves; he will not apply it, and herein he does discreetly fearing it may be, least it should be said that that which he would seem to have referred to the High Priest for final judgment, should indeed be referred to the Judge contradistinctly spoken of; and by the Syriack disjunctively to the Priests and Levits. And 2. I hope the High Priest at Rome doth not undertake a sentence in causes of blood. And thirdly in that case there was contempt, thou shalt take away the evil, it is not said errour, and analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato, and also ver. 12. this is intimated, that man that will do presumptuously. Fourthly, Suppose it had been referred to the High Priest for sentence final; this might be extraordinary in a Typical respect to Christ. And they know the rule, Extraordinaria non trahuntur in regulam: We cannot make a rule of extraordinaries. And yet also was not the High Priest, quatenus talis, Infallible; as appears in the condemnation of Christ, as I told them.
Now he would distinguish by saying, The Jewish Church erred not. The true High Priest (without whom there is no true representative Church) erred not: Cajaphas was not the true High Priest, the other true High Priest was Christ. Prety sport. So the Roman Church never erreth, because Christ is the true Head: but then the Pope should not be true High Priest, nor true Head: for so Caiaphas and he must be compared, in relation to Christ. May we not almost think that our Adversary is within a little put to his shifts? For Christ was in being, I hope, and had declared himself the true Messias, and yet he said, "the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair; then we are bound to do all whatsoever is said to us, without a true High Priest. 2. How many Popes were not true Popes, and so not true High Priests: and then when shall we be certain whether we have a true High Priest, and consequently a true Church, and consequently that it cannot erre? For as absolute infallibility hath it self to particular Faith in any point, according to Mr. Knot: So absolute certainty of a true Pope hath it self to our knowledg whether it cannot erre. Well, but he hath told us that he is the true Pope whom the Church shall accept: So before, but then Caiaphas was the true High Priest, because he was accepted by the Jews. 2. Without a true Pope the Church might erre; and so erre in the choice of a true Pope: and then we are never a whit the nearer. And then, Thirdly, Christ was not the true High Priest, because he was not accepted by the Jews, but condemned. And then again, as well the Council might be infallible without a true High Priest, as a General Council, since without any Pope or Head thereof: but the four General Councils they will say are infallible: and yet we say there was no Pope then in their sense. Therefore the Council of Arimnium, which he speaks of here was not fallible upon that account, namely, because it was not confirmed by the Pope; for the other Councils were not confirmed by a Pope neither; [Page 958] there being then none. And if the Council of Ariminum did themselves chuse a Pope, then he was accepted by them; and so he was the true Pope, as before.
He saies then, This true High Priest (namely Christ) erred not: the true Head of the Church not erring, the Church cannot be said to erre. —iterum Crispinus. This is [...]. Was Christ an external Head in the policy of the Church? If so, my Adversary and the Disciplinarians might joyn Principles for their Government. And upon this account the Pope should not be stiled onely the Vicar of Christ, and Successor of St. Peter, but also the Successor of Christ, the Sea being void by Christs promotion. 2. If Christ be the true Head of the Church, then the Pope is the false Head; unless the Pope and Christ be all one; or let them distinguish that Christ is a true Head in one sense, namely the vital and spiritual Head, the Pope onely the Ministerial Head; and if they thus distinguish, then though the vital Head doth not erre, the Ministerial Head may erre. Thirdly, Christ as the true Head of his Church hath relation to the Church invisible: but we have now to do with the Church as visible, and upon this consideration the promises which are made in Christ and by Christ to the Church as St. Math. 16. and elsewhere, should not be made to the Church virtual, or to the Church Representative, but invisible unto which properly he hath relation, as Head. And thus we acknowledg the promises made to the Church against errour, are true; namely against errour damnative. Fourthly, If they closely intend this which is said in service to the Roman Church so farre, that it cannot erre, because Christ is the Head; then what Christ doth the Pope must do, and what the Pope doth Christ must do: but surely Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, so doth not the Pope do: and Christ instituted his Supper in both kinds, so doth not the Pope: and then if what the Pope does, the same, Christ should be said to [Page 959] do, Christ should contradict himself; for by himself he instituted it in both kindes, by the Pope in one, and also Christ in Pope Liberius did subscribe against his own divinity. Lastly there might have been another true Head Ministerial in the Church without prejudice to the former; might there not? If not, farewell Pope and Monarchy; If so, then his answer is none, that Christ was then the true Head of the Church: for so neither Caiaphas nor any other should have been High Priest.
That of St. Athanasius was touched even now, and it is good still, if Councils be infallible; since the reason, why that of Ariminum should not be good, is not good; and therefore that might be as infallible with eight hundred Bishops, as the Council of Nice with fewer; since also according to my Adversary, Christ is the true Head of his Church, and therefore no matter whether there was any Ministerial Head or not, to confirm it.
And as for exceptions against our English Translation again from some of our own, we need say no more; for we did not hold the Translation infallible. As he said of a Christian that he is mundu [...] & mundandus, cleare and yet to be cleansed; so may it be said of the Translation; it was good and yet might be mended; and hath since, since their exceptions. But 2. If they will argue from imperfection in one place to a corruption in the whole, it is a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid: but simply it will redound, if they might so argue, to the undoing of the infallibility of the Latin, and purity too. And then if he takes aim against our English by the Interpretation of that of Malachi, or the Translation rather, they bespeak a falsity in the charge, for there was good reason by the connexion for that Reddition.
Here we have little but a rhapsody of repetitions of former grounds, which being showed to be rotten, he can solidly build nothing.
His first and principal ground here is that the Church [Page 960] cannot erre; and this yet is the main question: And therefore his compare betwixt the Priests declaring the Law of the Church, and our Ministers declaring the Law of Scriptures by the Originals is not well grounded. First, Because that ground is not made good. Secondly, because we do not urge infallibility by the Ministers, as they must. And thirdly, because though their Priests should infallibly conveigh the Doctrine of the Church; yet the Doctrine of the Church may be fallible: so is not Scripture in the Original. And what he saith concerning most corrupted Translations hath been formerly answered in compare with their Latin; which they pretend infallible and is not, and therefore their Church is not infallible: but we pretend not translations infallible, though better then, theirs is now. That we are not assured of true Scripture and if so, yet not of the true sense, hath been answered; as to things necessary: and more assured then they by their Church. That many necessary controversies are not conteined in Scripture, hath been refelled and returned to them with use. We have shewed that they have no reason to take away from the people the use of Scripture. That Chaos of Corruptions in our English is more easily denied then proved; and the recrimination to Latin is more easiely proved then denied
And as for the taking of the law from the mouth of the Priest to be as secure, as to take the Signification of a word in Scripture from the publique consent of all men, they may know, if they have no more for faith, they have no faith Divine; as the effect cannot exceed the cause, so the assent cannot exceed the ground thereof. Aqua tantum ascendit quantum descendit.
Their permission of Scripture is in that language which the people doth not understand, and this is not then to permit them Scripture, which is, as he saies, knowen to most and bred men in Learning.
And he hath no reason surely to speak of vulgar Translations; [Page 961] for surely theirs is the vulgar Latin; though Christned by the Trent Council; and never a whit the better for that.
And I hope his 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 [Page 962] 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 [Page 963] 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, [Page 964] 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 teaching them what the universal Church holds to be Gods Law, than by teaching them what they themselves conceive to be Gods law, as you would have them do. Ans. This doth not contradict: If they say it is more likely, we can say it. But what is this to Faith? And upon this condition they are undone. For which of their private Priests are able to say positively that this is the doctrine of the whole Church for all ages and places since the Apostles? The Church otherwise considered hath no considerable Authority: and so we mean the universal Church. Secondly, Although thus the Church is not the regula regulans, but the regula regulata; yet they cannot bring the consent of the universal Church for the points of difference.
Ad num. 11. 12. 13. 14. Herein he gives me many words towards asserting Tradition to be a sufficient bottom of faith; but in all these how little he takes away of my answer, any one may say better then I.
In the beginning of the eleventh, he goes upon a false [Page 965] supposition, that in the times before Moses the traditions were received by the Church upon the infallibility of the Church. They were received by the Church, not infallibly by the Church. The Church had it self herein as a mean of proposall, not as the last motive of faith. Their faith was terminated by the spirit of God in the matter of tradition; was not determined by the Church's Authoritative delivery: the objectum quod of their faith was not the Churches proposal. Then 2. supposing what we do not grant, yet there is not now the same reason for the Church: because they had more appearances t [...]en of God to and in the Church, then now there is or hath been since the Apostles times. And therefore the rule is good, Distingue tempora. 3. This will make a circle. How were they assured infallibly of tradition by the Church? How were they infallibly assured of the Church by tradition? then the resolution of their faith was not into the credit of the Church as infallible. Therefore doth my Antagonist in vain say to me, shew the ground they had there to hold the Church infallible. Nay the proofe hereof must come from the affirmer: Asserentis est probare. They are to make good here two things first, that they did hold their Church infallible; otherwise how could any of the people hold it to be infallible; unles the Church did so determin of i [...] selfe? and then that though they did hold it to be infallible, yet that it was so and must be so, otherwise they could not believe anything.
Afterwards he makes a per [...]triction of my distinction, that the word in substance of it was before the Church, which was begotten by it: and then he tells me what I adde thereunto, that when there is as much need, and as great a certainty of tradition as formerly, then he may urge the argument. Here he shifts and shuffles. He tell me that I must understand it of the unwritten word and to be only in orall [...]radition. Right I understand it so. But what is this to [...] question; whether the manner of conveyance by t [...]e [...] in way of orall tradition was infallible; and then whether we [Page 966] are bound to take all or part of necessary doctrine from the Church this way. And can they now conclude the Church infallible in the matter of tradition bes [...]ide the word written, by their tradition of the word unwritten? And can they shew that the Iews were equally bound to any Tradition before the word written, which was not agreable to the word afterwards written? Otherwise how can they supply this to their purpose in urging Traditions differing from Scripture in matter equally to Scripture; as the Trent Council defines, as before? Let them come to the point; and satisfie demands.
In his discourse following I can grant him all untill he come to this, they only had Gods word revealed by tradition. This we must debate upon as being ambiguously delivered: for [only] may relate to the subject [they] and so the sense is, the Iewes only had Gods word revealed by Tradition, but this is concerned here; or [only] may have relation to [Gods word] as to the matter which was revealed, and so the sense is, that they had only that word which was revealed by tradition; and this comes not to the point neither, or only may relate to the manner of revealing by tradition, and thus indeed it is proper for the debate, but thus it is denied; if we take it thus, that the word of God was no otherwise assured to them than by tradition, though they onely being Jews had onely that word of God which was revealed by tradition, to believe; yet had they not only tradition, by which they did beleeve. And therefore his conclusion must be naught; and all he saies to that purpose, even to the end of his Paragraph.
In the twelfth he deales about the need of tradition, and he saies that the need or necessity of Tradition which you conceive to have been greater then than now, doth not make the Traditions more Credible. Ans. True it is, that simply the need of them doth not make them to be more credible, if they be to be believed: but there is the question whether there is now [Page 967] any to be believed necessarily, in point of faith, when there is not such need of them. Scripture is as credible when we are heaven, in regard of it self; yet there we have no need of it: but as since we have no need of it there, we have reason to believe that there it will not take place; so neither should Traditions, when there is not that need of them. My answer then did bear it self upon this, that if there were that necessity of Tradition now as then, he might urge the argument, because God have would provided sufficiently for security of tradition now as then: falsum prius. And we may take his own similitude, those that have read many credible books of France, have they any need of orall Tradition, to believe that there is such a Kingdome as France? he saies no: yet these last are as certain, he saies. Well then, no more need have we of tradition for the doctrine of Christ which we sufficiently read in Scripture. So then, although he concludes Traditions hopefull (and superflua non nocent) yet can he not conclude them as necessary; which should have been demonstrated.
But this he would doe in following words, even now when we have Scriptures and Traditions, we have ever had with them a perpetual succession of horrible Divisions opening still wider and wider. Again odd reflexions upon Scripture: but it is well he jopnes Traditions with it to take part of the consequence, as he thinks: and yet it may be he does not think so; but that the cause of the Divisions is only Scripture: and had we had no Scriptures, we should have had fewer Divisions. Doth he think so? Then how is Scripture necessary, as they generally confesse, when it had been convenient that there had been no Scripture, upon this consideration? And how should they prove the Authority of the Church without Scripture? Well, but take his words in their ordinary sense, and what kinde of argument will this be. Even now when we have Scripture and Traditions; therefore now Traditions are now as necessary or [Page 968] more then when there was no Scripture? Nay they will seem to be less necessary, when notwithstanding them, we have more divisions. How then shall these divisions be remedied? It may be by more traditions. What? New traditions? oppositum in apposito.
But in the next words he speaks out All (divisions) commonly caused by misinterpretation of the Scriptures, to which inconvenience they were not subject, before all Scripture was written. And therefore in this respect there is now after the writing of the Scriptures, a greater necessity then ever of Traditions. Ans. So then, he hath now commented upon the former words, and his sense is plain that had we not had Scripture we should have had less need of Traditions. First, we had thought the Learned men of their Church had devised Traditions, not because we had Scripture, but because Scripture was wanting in the matter of necessary doctrine. And so he himself telles us presently after, that since part of the Canon is lost, we must say there is use of Traditions. And yet now we have more need of Traditions, because Scripture is written. But, it may be, he will say there is more need of Traditions to clear the interpretations of Scripture. Yea, but then he should mean by Traditions Traditive interpretations of Scripture, as they are called. But are not these lost too? For who is there can give us any account of them? And as for other Traditions we are never a whit the better he hath told us before; since notwithstanding we have them, we have a perpetuall succession of horrible divisions opening still wider & wider. Let them remember that of N [...]lus, to accuse Scripture is to accuse God. 2. Are the divisions necessary in points necessary? If he means so, it is flatly denied. If in other points, it is not to the question principal. 3. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: if we be bound to Tradition, as such; we are bound to all; and yet all Traditions they have not kept. 4. Traditions doe not lessen divisions about interpretation of Scripture: for one division is whether Traditions [Page 969] have any ground in Scripture. And he may know that he hath named Texts to this purpose, and because there are differences about Traditions, therefore, by his argument, we should not be ruled by them; as indeed they do not order themselves by them. They keep Tradition in the controversie for the use of the Church; not in practice, as he said, Antiquitatem semper crepant, novi indies vivunt: and we must let goe the Scripture in controversie and practice for the use of Tradition and the Church, they and their Fathers have troubled the waters of Scripture for the cheif Fisher. Let them let their Traditions alone: and they will see their discourse is a non causa.
Then he repeats importunately the uses of Traditions, but not my refutation. And he speaks of Traditions of such matter as we have in Scripture: which is beside the mark, we are about Traditions in their sense of that matter which is not in Scripture equally to be believed to Scripture, which should prove the insufficiency of Scripture, and the necessity of them. This is [...]. And therefore much he saies to this purpose is like the drift of snow, which makes an heap, but will not bear one up from sinking in it, Yet I must note his wit in that he saies, that God must purposely by a miracle have infringed the course of nature, if the former Traditions of the Church should grow then to lose their sufficiency in order to the same effect, when they were strengthened by so great an Authority as that of the sacred writers was. How little in this is there of a sober soul; As if the matter of Tradition was written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to confirm the authority of delivering it by orall Tradition. Doth it not appear in Eccles. History that the matter of the New Testament, was written that it might be more certain and firm in the minds of men? It seems then that the looser way by Tradition was not so sure and standing—litera scripta manet. Secondly, If there be so great an Authority of the sacred [Page 970] writers, surely we may make more use of what they wrote to confirm Traditions. Adeone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt; as he said, that the Authority of the sacred writers should be imployed as it were onely to serve Tradition. Thirdly, The Authority of the sacred Writers did rather confirm the truth of them than the use, for why were they written, if Traditions were necessary after they were written, as such? Therefore fourthly, He concludes but sufficiency of them in order to the effect: but this is not effectual to his purpose. If he did conclude necessity of them after the writing, this would be somewhat: but then there would be more in the conclusion than is in the premises, and yet surely all were nothing to the state of the question; because we make no question of such Traditions. Again he pleadeth losse of the Canon, upon which he thinks, Tradition should revive. Ans. That we have spoken of sufficiently before; that the supposal doth not inferre insufficiency of the Canon, and therefore doth not inferre necessity of Traditional matter beside what is written. And also, is there yet (notwithstanding the losse of some part of Scripture) enough remaining to confirm Traditions? yes, they will say. Then God it seems hath taken more care for Traditions than Salvation: there is enough for Traditions yet in Scripture; not for Salvation. Well but again, there is enough in Scripture to confirm all Traditions, is there not? If there be, then there is enough for Salvation, or else there was not enough in Traditions: Because they will say Scripture hath confirmed all Traditions; to the Jew namely. And then, if there was enough to the Jew for Salvation in the Old Testament, which was adaequate to Tradition; then much more have we enough for Salvation by the New Testament: and therefore is there no need of any Tradition beside the Canon.
Then he returns to an enarration of the use of Traditions even after writing; which is of no use to them, but to us; [Page 971] because here he produceth several Texts for Traditions in the same notion; as 2. Thes. 2. Gal. 1.8. Tim. 2.2, 2. and herein he prevaricates in his own cause: For if these Texts be meant of such Traditions which were afterwards written in the matter of them, they are so understood as we would have them to be understood; and they are not pertinent to the question about Traditions beside Scripture, in the matter of them. Secondly, Whereas he speaks that these Texts confirm the certainty of Traditions; we grant it; namely of those Traditions which were afterwards written: but how do these Texts confirm the certain necessity of those that are not written And therefore thirdly, He is mightily disappointed if he conceives those Texts should bind us to stand upon Traditions now more than ever; for the formality of Tradition was there sunk in the writing; and the matter of Tradition was the same with that which was writtten, in his own confession, unless he drives the Texts Heterogeneously to his own words.
And he impingeth upon the same stone again, What wise man would put [...]ut one light, costing him nothing, because it will be shining of its own nature (unless you will needs have i [...] hidden) because he hath now another light, but so, that even with both those lights many of his houshold will still remain i [...] darkness. Ans. He supposeth a light added to a light. It is well then that Scripture is assured to be one light, but his Tradition should be compared to a light when there is no other light, namely when the Scripture is defective. Secondly, If he thinks Tradition is a light costing us nothing, he may be deceived; for it will cost a great deal of Scrutiny, since we cannot see it shining of its own nature infallibly. And thirdly, If some be still in darknese with both those lights, then surely they may be more in darkness with but one, and that is Tradition; therefore they should allow the people the light of the Scripture, since both too little, as he saies, to some. But fourthly, What [Page 972] if one light put out the other in the true state of the question; namely Scripture Tradition superadded in matter? And what wise man will light a straw candle, in the Fathers expression, when the Sun shines? the Sun-light of Scripture puts out the straw-light of Traditions, condemning ‘those who teach for Doctrines Traditions of men; which the Romanist does in some proportion.’ And fifthly, what wise man would have such a light which serves his turn best when it shines least: for Traditions, if we believe our Adversaries, are a covered dish, dainties, to be kept private for those who are fit to receive them; the more wise and perfect men which may teach them to others. The mystery of Salvation, that is made common by writing: but the mystery of Tradition is put under a bushel. The mystery of the Trinity is delivered in Scripture; but the mystery of the Trent Traditions must not be familiarly known. So then, say they what they will or can, we shall sooner find an extinguisher for the light of the rush candle, than they for the light of the Sun.
But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us, we should have had a more certain Tradition given us. So he delivers my words; which were not so, but thus, ‘If Scripture had not been left to us, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us, as the Gospel was before it was written.’ Now some difference there is betwixt given us, and left us; for that which is left to us is intended for our constant use, which that which is given doth not connotate. So some Pontificians will say, the Scripture was given upon particular occasion: but was not left to the Church as a fixed universal rule. But there is yet more betwixt us about my words, we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us; so I said: he reports me thus, we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us. A more certain Tradition given, and a Tradition more certainly conveighed, are not altogether the same, the former supposeth the matter of Tradition [Page 973] as not certain; and this we can deny as to those times when there was no Scripture, as written; the other speaks de modo tradendi, which comes closer to our question. For we can perswade our selves that God who is graciously provident for his Church, wherein he hath placed his Name, would have taken care that if there had not been a certain direction in writing, the matter of necessary Doctrine and practice should have been more certainly communicated to us.
So then he thrives very little by compare of the Christian Church with the Jewish, although the Christian Church be more noble. For first the compare must be of the Jewish with the whole Christian Church, because the Jewish Church (Proselyts being included therein, namely Proselyts of the Covenant, as they were distinguished) was all the Church there was. And secondly, Because no part of the whole Church can compare with the Jewish Church as to priviledges: and then by this reckoning how little of Nobility will fall to their share? Thirdly, As the Tradition (which was it whereby the matter of Scripture was proposed) was for the time necessary before the matter of Scripture was written: so also must the Tradition of the Christian Church be considered as in relation to the time before which the matter of the New Testament was written, therefore he should have pleaded, if he would have it done patly, that there was any Tradition of Faith after the Old Law was written, beside what was written, which was to be believed unto Salvation equally to what was written; and then have drawn down a parallel Line of proportion of the same (though he would have more nobility) for the Christian Church. Thirdly, If the nobleness of a Church be antecedent to more certain Tradition, as he thinks, then how happened it that there was so little a time betwixt the preaching of the Gospel and the writing of it? It seems then, if God provides for Churches according to the nobleness of them, [Page 974] that the better provision for the Church is by Scripture. The Christian then hath a more certain way of Faith than by Tradition.
And as for means of securing Tradition in the Christian Church, which he compares with the Jewish in, he hath no cause to bragg. For first, they cannot say or prove that they have all Traditions in number formal and material. Secondly, They do not practice all. How many are there which St. Basil speaks of in his Tract. de Sp. Sanct. which they observe not. Thirdly, The safety of them is in the whole Church; and yet forsooth every one must not know them. Fourthly, If so, then have they reason to blush that they have been more careful to keep Tradition than Scripture, and particularly of the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew, and is this for their credit? Fifthly. Are the Scriptures preserved uncorrupt or not? If not, how have they been faithful, as before. If so, then why do their learned men obtrude the Authentiqueness of their Latin upon this account, that when this Edition was made, the Scriptures were pure and uncorrupted, but corrupted since?
Again the Tradition of Christ's Primitive Church before the Scripture was written and sufficiently promulged, was to be believed upon her sole Authority. Ans. If he takes that Tradition inclusively to the Apostles who preached that which they did write afterwards, and take Tradition for the matter of what was written, we grant it; if but he takes tradition of the primitive Church to be that which was derived to after times, and was not written, we deny it to be believed upon her sole Authority. In the former sense it is true, but not pertinent; in the latter, pertinent, but not true. And indeed this was the notion of Traditions for the first times, namely to be that s [...]e of doctrine which did comprehend the materialls of faith, [...] to be any thing different from Scripture, or diverse ( [...] first of the Gal. 8. doth not signifie contra but prae [...]) from [Page 975] Scripture. So he will finde Irenaeus to mean it. And so St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 5. Cat. 117. p, of the gr. last Ed. makes it to be upon account no other than [...], the System out of the Holy Scriptures about every of those things conteined. And again, [...], for things of faith were not composed as it pleased men, but the most pertinent things being gathered out of all ‘Scripture do make up the doctrine of faith. And again as the seed of mustard in a little grain doth contein many branches: so faith it self in few words doth comprehend the knowledge of piety that is in the old and new Testament.’ And what followes but that text which he (my adversary named) [...], see therefore Brethren and hold the Traditions. So then if he takes Tradition in the first sense, the Church was infallible therein, by the Apostles: if in the second, the Tradition was infallibly Scripture: and the Church believed it upon that account. And that Traditions did not bind either in their own virtue, or without Scripture, they may see in St. Basil, who yet speaks much for them. So in the seventh ch. of the Holy Ghost, where speaking of the controversie whethre they were to say of the Son of God with whome or by whome, he hath these words, [...], &c. this is not sufficient to us that it is a Tradition of the Fathers: for even they did follow the will of Scripture, having taken principles out of testimonies, which a little before we proposed to you out of Scripture. God therefore said by his Apostles that the Traditions then were infallible, (being in matter the same with what they wrote) for their Authority. Now if God said this, shall we upon his fallible discourse (for even Councils are fallible in their discourse) come to say the Church's Traditions are further infallible then agreeable to his word, though God never said so, and [Page 976] never yet expressed any such infallibility of the Church? And thus I return him his own words mutatis mutandis: And so my Argument out of Irenaeus is not yet refuted.
Neither doth he take away my use of Irenaeus testimony in the next paragr. For as to my Argument what he saies is not appliable. It was thus out of his Authority, If the Scripture had not been left to us, ‘we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us as the Gospel was before it was written; but the Scripture is now left to us; therefore no need of certain conveighance of tradition to us.’
This Syllogism he makes no offer of answer to: for that which he saies in a Parenthesis, (though you cannot invent the means, by which Tradition should have been conveighed more certainly, supposing there had been no Scripture) I can receive without prejudice to my Argument: for whatsoever Hypothetically should have been done, had not there been Scripture; yet now, since we have Scripture, we have no such need of; we now dispute upon the fact, not against the supposition. Therefore from the dint of the ratiocination he digresseth to an observation of disrespect in me to St. Irenaeus, because I said, ‘Neither can we believe that those barbarous Nations did rely onely upon Tradition.’ Ans. He is in this deceived. To assent to Tradition in the matter of it, and not to assent to the matter upon the sole Authority of Tradition, are not such opposites as he imagines; for they may well agree. Therefore though the Father said, they did assent to Tradition as to the matter; yet not by Tradition, as the manner. Tradition was the objectum materiale, not the objectum formale of their Faith. And the next words as he also perhibits the Fathers words, do defend my answer, ‘having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost.’ So then they were assured of the Doctrine of Salvation by the Holy Ghost: then they did not believe that Tradition upon the sole Authority of the Church. So this contradicts my Adversary, and makes for me; not onely by consequence [Page 977] because it is against him; but directly: for then we can as well be assured of Scripture by the Holy Ghost; & have no such need then of the authority of the Church, as to salvation, though the church were infallible, which is one of the things to be proved, and cannot. And yet besides, this tradition in the sense of the Father, was in the matter of it, Scripture; and therefore hath no consanguinity with the true state of the question. So then we may conclude in the negative, they did not rely upon, or believe upon the sole account of that very tradition, & yet, if they had, it would not conclude against our cause, because that tradition is not the same with what belongs to the question.
To be civil to an Adversary in this number,N. 14. all the sense of it may be resolved into this discourse, If the radition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods Word, that which she delivereth for Gods word, be to be believed, then she is to be believed as proposing that to be Gods Word, which is not written. Ans. This hath been abundantly agitated before, with our indemnity to the Plaintiffe: but since he repeats, I do not. And we answer, First, the consequence is not clear, especially if we extend it to that which is not grounded in Scripture, if he understands it of that which is grounded in Scripture, it is not proper to the question. As to that which is not grounded in Scripture, we may still deny the major. Tradition (universal) of the Church may be worthy of assent as to the truth of Scripture to be the Word of God, and not so of that which is delivered beside Scripture: which also is held by others against them, and the reason is not yet disproved; because there was more necessity of the Faith of Scripture than that which is delivered beside Scripture, and therefore may we well suppose a greater assistance to the proposing of Scripture than any thing diverse. Deus non deficit in necessariis. Why do they assert infallible assistance to General Councils, not to private Doctors, or to a National Council? Namely, because others [Page 978] are to be directed by the General Councils; well then the Church universal might be more assisted for the proposing of Scripture than for any thing else. But then I deny the minor, the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent: It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance, yet not of an i [...]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 [Page 979] 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 [Page 980] 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 [Page 981] must distinguish times. And therefore yet it remains good, that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world; and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood. And if they had not, God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost, sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts, in the gift of tongues. And this concludes against their Latin service: as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time, when the Scripture can first be shewed to have been thus communicated to the people of severall languages, what is this to the purpose? If it had not been done afterwards, it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times. And if it had not been done, it should have been done. But that it was done, appears seasonably in the great Bible. Neither can they tell us, or will, when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentique; whether under Sixtus Quintus, or Clement the eighth.
In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false. Ans. I did move this question: but somwhat else was annexed, which he saies nothing to. Well to this he now answers, first, they could know this better then know true Scripture from false, for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition, recommending the true Scripture, from the false tradition recommending the false. Ans. First this hath been often denied him that the ultimate resolution of faith in the true Scripture: is not Tradition: this may lead us to the gate of the Temple, but this does not open the doore of faith. 2. That Tradition which makes an inducement is of the universall, not Roman Church. 3. How shall we know true tradition but by the true Church? How shall we know the true Church but by Scripture; [Page 982] therefore we must know the true tradition from the false by the Scripture; which contradicts his method.
And he saies, they (could do this as well (or better) than their fore-Fathers for many hundred of years, yea for two thousand, yea for twice two thousand years together. Answ. First they see then their error in defining Faith so strictly to be an infallible assent: since they here stand upon a comparative certainty (if so) which amounts not to the consistence of faith. Secondly. He supposeth that which is not to be supposed, that their fore-fathers were determined in their faith of the word of God by Tradition. Even now, or a litle before, he said Tradition was estalished to the Jew by Scripture: Now Tradition is that which must discerne and consequently stablish Scripture. 3. It appears that as Scripture is more perfect then Tradition; because otherwise God had gone the worst way, namely from that which is more perfect to that which is less perfect, namely from Tradition to the writing of his word, but that which is less pefect cannot establish that which is more perfect. Therfore neither then, nor now could Scripture receive the blessing of establishment from that which is inferiour 4. In the times of the law there was no other Church to vie with the Jewes about Traditions: And therefore they might be more certain of true Traditions: But now there are several national Churches, which may pretend superiority of tradition, or tradition of superiority as the Roman doth: and therefore it is not so sure a way to fixe our last foot upon Tradition. 5. Universal Tradition of all times and places (which only weighs in this cause) is not in other things for them, nor in that canon supernumerary of theirs; and therefore let them either retract the argument, or take it. Yet he will be confident of two Traditions, whereof the efficacie is commended with perpetuall profession and answerable practice dayly occurring, [Page 983] Baptism of Infants, and praier for the faithfull eparted. The first of these we have abundantly examined before: and he does here most insist upon the latter, assigning also his reason of more practice of this last. Because they baptize Infants but once, but they pray [...]ften for the same man who is dead. And then being more practised, it is more confirmed; which Cressie also urgeth. Ans. As for Paedobaptism here, he doth not prove it to be a Tradition, unless this be a true proposition, that whatsoever is commended with perpetual profession and answerable practice daly accurring, is only delivered by Tradition. Tradition is such: but all that is such, is not Tradition. Therefore that proposition denied. And for what he saies towards both before, that the Apostles did only by unwritten Tradition clearly and undeniably teach the baptizing of Children, and praier for the faithfull departed: it is not clear that it is undeniable; and therefore clearely and undeniably it is denied. Baptism of Infants hath not yet lost sufficient ground in Scripture to keep it from a necessity of being named Tradition, as he should have shewed. And as to the other, praier for the dead, we answer, first, it seemes then it is but a Tradition, and they will pradon us if we speak thus diminutively of it. And whether this will please all the Roman Doctors, that it should have no footing in Scripture, let it be none of our care 2. For the object of persons whom they praied for, question would be made, what morally, they were, who were to be praied for; but this he tells us; he saies they were the faithfull. Well, but all the faithfull, I suppose. It may be they will say, yes. If not; let them give us a reason of their distinction, according to Tradition. If so, then praier for the dead doth not inferr purgatory, which they intend in the praier for the dead. And the reason of the consequence is proved, because praier was made for all the faithfull; and some of them went up [Page 984] to Heaven per saltum, as they will also confess, namely Apostles and Martyrs; and yet these were also prayed for in order to a joyful resurection. And indeed the antient praiers for the dead did respect their bodies in the grave to be raised up at the resurrection, not their soules to be raised out of Purgatory after a plenary satisfaction. And what meanes St. Austin in Tract. In Iohannem 49. unus quis (que) cum causa sua dormiet, & cum causâ suâ resurget. And some of their own have lately in this differed from them. Neither had the Roman Church with their infallibility perswaded the Greek Church hereof, in Nilus's time, who hath a learned discourse against it. And thirdly, as for Inscriptions upon the Graves (whereby he would make a prescription for the tradition) we say two things. First that we must have them to be shewed to be so antient as to have been universally used in the Primitive times, and then secondly, that they were used upon the Roman account. And as for Aerius, who (onely) as he saies denied praying for the dead, to be accounted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and St. Epiphanius, they must somewhat excuse us: for this absolutely is not right for their turn, if true. First not right for their use, because he might deny prayers and oblations for the dead in the former respect, namely for a joyful resurrection; and this comes not up to the state of the point wherein we differ, namely whether prayer for the dead was a tradition in their sense, as inferring Purgatory. But 2. Neither is it absolutely true that Aerius was accounted an Heretique for this opinion, exclusively to other opinions of his, as my Adversaries words import. However he meant them, I will pinch it, Either he means for this opinion only, or for this opinion with other opinions. If for this opinion concurrently with others, this derogates from the common sense of his words and from his use too: because if he was accounted an heretique for severall opinions, it may be some of them [Page 985] were not heretical opinions; and then it cannot be said that he was for every of them accounted an heretick; unless we could make some to be heresies, which are not heresies; and this would be a contradiction. Well then, I take him to mean that Aerius was accounted an heretick for this his opinion exclusively to other opinions in a negative precision; and then I say it is not true. And to bring it to the test, one of his Authors shall be mine, St. Austin in his Catalogue of heresies N. 53. He tells us of Philaster that he had made an enumeration of heresies; and after him, more perfectly Epiphanius: and he came after them, and he gives us an account of the Arrians from Aerius: and several things he does say of him, that he was sorry that he was not a Bishop; and that having fallen in Arrianorum heresin (into the heresie of the Arrians) he added also some proper opinions, saying that we "ought not to pray or offer oblations for the dead; and that set fasts were not solemnly to be observed; and also that a Presbyter ought not to be by any difference distinguished from a Bishop. And some said of him that they were also Eneratites, and Apotactites. So then, the result hereof is this; if he could not say Aerius was accounted an heretick, onely, for this. Nay St. Austin doth contradistinguish here heresie to proper opinions. So he might be an heretick and not for proper opinions, because he had fallen into the heresie of the Arrians; yea and some account him an heretick for not distinguishing betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter; therefore though his proper opinions were in the judgement of St. Austin, heretical, yet can it not be said that he was accounted an heretick onely for denying prayers for the dead: which was to be shewed by me. And if for this opinion disjunctively, yet not for denying prayer for the dead in his sense; which was to be shewed by him. And therefore upon the whole matter, we cannot submit to Tradition as [Page 986] infallible: because this Tradition, in the Roman sense, bears false witness of its self: nor to the Church, if it fallibly pretends infallible Tradition. Neither can prudent reason make infallible assent; unless the conclusions could be better than their premises. Prudent reason were more apt to make Science; which they have no cause to be inclinable to neither: because it is more opposit to their implicit Faith.
And he hath no cause therefore to say, How many true Beleevers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed? Ans. All the reason of Faith which can be given, if we take Faith in the acception of an infallible assent, must be grounded upon infallible principles: if any believed upon other account, it was not properly Faith; and therefore it cannot be said in propriety of the notion (which the Romanist also stands upon) that they believed. Secondly, If he takes Faith in a looser sence for an assent upon humane Authority, this is not to the question; and we can allow Tradition its influence hereunto. Thirdly, If he means that they could not give a more prudent reason for what they beleived, as to others that should ask them a reason of their Faith; this we can yield as to universal Tradition, that by the inartificial Argument of Authority we can give no more prudent reason than by Tradition. But this doth not hit the question, whether the testimony private of the Spirit of God makes not a better assurance of Faith to our selves, though this is not demonstrable to others, that we have this assurance by the Spirit of God. Therefore fourthly, This will not do the business, unless what he saies, he proves from Scripture. We have urged the contrary in the example of the Beraeans and the term [believing] in Scripture is not seldom taken not of an internal act of Faith subjective, but an external profession of faith objective. And so Simon Magus is said to have believed. [Page 987] Here he gives us occasion to wish he had done so before as he does here, in putting his sense into some form, thus; Faith being an infallible assent, controversies concerning Faith cannot be determined so as to end them effectually, but by an infallible living judg who can hear you & me, & be heard by you & me: but no other than the Church can (with any ground) be held to be this living Judge, therefore she must be held to be the Judge. Ans. First to the major, and we say that it begs the question in two Suppositions; First, That there is a necessity of controversies in points of Salvation. And secondly that it is necessary to Salvation, that all controversies (though not in points of Salvation) should infallibly be determined: When these two suppositions are sufficiently made good, we shall grant him the major; and yet then also that infallible Judge is yet bound to judge by law of Scripture, [...]. And then as to the minor: we say secondly, This speaks for the Church universal; which then, according to my Adversaries Principles, should alwaies have a true Pope and a true standing General Council; or else we should think God had not provided for his Church ad semper. Now if it be said some controversies may arise which are not so necessary to be decided in order to Salvation, then he destroys his major, which goes in part upon that Supposition; and so in this he is one of us. Therefore thirdly, We can retort his Argument, mutatis mutandis; Faith being an infallible assent requires an infallible Authority. But the Church is not yet proved to have an infallible Authority; therefore it must be the Scripture. Fifthly, If he means his infallible Living Judge of the Roman Church, we deny that this Judge will explicate all doubts: for how hath it ended all controversies in the Trent Council? Indeed that Council hath made more, about the sense of ambiguous definitions: and therefore though his major proposition were true de posse (which yet we deny [Page 988] upon the former considerations) yet we were to seek de velle: and then should we be never a whit the nearer.
And as touching that Text (whereby he would prove that the Bible cannot end all controversies, because it cannot end the controversie about it with the Arrians) these three are one. We say first, in ingenuity, he needed not to have taken notice of it. Secondly, We should not by right have disputed the subject of the question, whether this or that be Scripture or not: Our dispute is about the predicates of scripture. Thirdly, the Arrians were sufficiently condemned by another Text, as before: and therefore there is no such necessity of the question. Fourthly, We rather believe the Church than the Arrian herein: But let it be put to the pinch; and there were more Faith required in it than the matter afforded; can the Church determin it by her own Authority infallibly? It not, why doth he raise the dust? If it can, why is it not formally done? Therefore either this Text hath not given necessary occasion to an infallible Judge: or the infallible Judge hath deceived us in not taking the occasion.
And therefore to put his other discourse into a shorter and better forme; thus, whatsoever requires infallible assent must have an infallible Authority. Diverss points not proposed clearly in Scripture, the Church requires an infallible assent to, therefore she must have infallible Authority; we answer, granting the major; (which yet they have no reason to urge unless they had more firm Principles) that the assumption may be true de facto, but not de jure. And then again, It is yet denied that ever the Church Universal did ever exact this. As to the right hereof, she must prove her infallibility and Authority too hereunto; as to the fact, it must be proved by our Adversaries. Therefore since I am respondent, I may conclude thus, Things necessary [Page 989] to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture: those points are not plainly, set down in Scripture, saies he, therefore I conclude, they are not necessary.
Here he makes a return to my Argument against him,N. 18. that if that must be Judge which can hear him and me, and be heard by him and me; then Tradition is thus excluded from being the Judge: here he distinguisheth, It is the Church who proposeth these Traditions, and not the Traditions, which are our judge. Ans. This is easily taken away, for according to their Principles, Tradition must be Judge of the Church: If their former Argument be good that we must not ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Scripture, because we do not know what is Scripture but by the Church; so also we cannot ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Church, because we cannot tell which is the Church but by Tradition. And if it be Judge of the Scripture in the Canon of it, as they must say, then surely it may be Judge of the Church, because (as before) by the Fathers opinion the Church must be proved by Scripture. Again by Tradition was the Faith of Christian Doctrine bred in the minds of the Barbarian Nations as we have it said before, by my Adversary: therefore Tradition must be the infallible Judge, or else they had not the same Faith which the Roman contends for, by an infallible Judge; or if they had, then there are more infallible Judges: or Faith may be had without an infallible Judge; or Traditions and the Church are all one; and then the distinction is none. And yet also this answer of his I did provide for before in these words, but you say the Church doth determine hereby (by Tradition) then may it determin by Scripture more securely and more universally. And to this he replies nothing: but holds the conclusion.
From hence he skips to answer me about that which I opposed to his Judge exclusively to any other, I urged [Page 990] that of St. Paul that an heretick is condemned by himself: ‘namely, (as I discoursed) by the Law of God within him by vertue of Conscience, which can and does, and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemnation of errour in us &c.’ To this he saies, he is not an heretick but an infidel, who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture. Ans. First, Then the Scriptures are so clearly the Word of God that an Infidel may be told thereof by his own Conscience. If not so, then his words have no sense: If so, then may we see the Scripture to be the Word of God by its own light, as the Heathens did the Law of nature; and then he contradicts his own former discourse. Secondly, Saint Paul speaks not of an Infidel, but (in terminis terminantibus) of an heretick, who supposeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God; though by consequence he denies it in Hypothesie, as to the point of heresie. So that the Text cannot be so put off. And though every Christian is readier to die than to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture; yet the heretick who supposeth the Scripture in Thesi and in general, may yet deny it in the application against him; and for this he is to be rejected, because he goeth against his own Principles of Scripture, which do condemn his heresie in his own conscience, though outwardly he opposeth. And he helps his cause no better with another shift, When St. Paul wrote those words, the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written; and until the whole Canon was written, your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of controversies. Ans. If he takes [whole] so as to be understood in order to the Canon, I grant that the whole Canon was not then written: but if he takes it in opposition to a sufficient direction by what was then written, I deny it; there was then as much written as was simply necessary to Salvation: for how could St. Paul otherwise [Page 991] say to Tim. That the Scriptures then were able to make him wise unto Salvation? thus I distinguish of the former part: but then 2. the latter I doe deny, that our awn Doctours do say that the Church was the infallible Judge of controversies, until the whole Canon of the Scriptures was written: for then the [...] of the Pharises had been infallible. No; the word of God was infallible when it was not written, but not the Church. Therefore he mistakes the purport of finishing the Canon, which was not ever held by us to cease the infallibility of the Church, but to accomplish the matter of Scripture; and so it doth exclude verbum non Scriptum. Infallibility of the Church was never held: but the Canon of Scripture was allwaies sufficient, providing allwaies that the Church in this consideration be meant contradistinctly to the writers of Scripture.
Neither needs he to wonder at my saying that the Church then was not sufficiently formed thereunto; namely to a definition of what was to be held therein. To this he saies, the Church was formed before St Pauls conversion, and before his conversion the number of Desciples was multiplied. Ans. The terme [Church] is very ambiguous. He takes it here of the Church vertual, or of the Church representative, or of the Church diffusive. The Church vertual, which the Iesuits say is the Pope, was not yet formed. The Church Representative as they say in a Council confirmed by the Pope, was not yet formed. There was no council General till after three hundred yeares; nor Pope so soon, in their sense. A Church diffusive there was: but this serves not his turn: for we must speake of such a Church formed so, that the heretique should be condemned for contradicting the definition of the Church. Now the definition of the Church according to my Adversary, is by the Church Representative, and this was not then formed [Page 992] Then again, to take his own words; either the Church was not then formed most compleatly with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith; or it was. Let them now say which they will. Then no necessity of Pope and Council, yea no necessity of Pope or Council. If it was not compleatly formed, then my former answer obtains. And besides if he had been condemned by himself because by the Church, then had he been condemned by himself extrinsecally to himself; or he and the Church must have been all one: therefore whether he had the doctrine from the Church, or immediately from any one of the Apostles; yet was he condemned by that doctrin as being impressed upon his own Conscience. So that I have as much as I can desire by this discourse, namely that, is possible for us to be Judged and condemned within our selves of Heresie, without an externall Judge: which then was not fully and exactly I am sure constituted according to the mind of our Adversaries; although, in purity of doctrine, the Church was better then, then ever she was since that time.
N. 19In this he begins more solemnly to tell us what he means by the name of the Church, and wherein consists the power of infallibility in a Decree or definition of the Church. And first he tels us who are to be excluded from a decisive voice, Children and women and laymen and inferiour Clergy, thus he proceeds first by exclusions, as they do in the choise of a Pope. And then he goes on by way of a [...] and so he makes the subject of the power of this Decree to be the prime pastours & Praelats of the Church, assembled together in a lawfull General Council with their Chief Pastour and Head the Bishop of Rome. This the progress of this Paragraph. Well, but our question is of the praedicate, whether the Church thus constituted is infallible in its Decrees, and therefore since he here hath no argument, he hath bound us not to have an answer. And yet may we note, that if he means [Page 993] the formation of a Church to be thus, we can more clearely contradict him in what he said formerly, that the Church was formed before St. Pauls conversion. It was not so formed. And yet 2. We may as well dispute here the subject of the question [whether the Church thus formed is infallible in its decrees] as he disputes the an sit of Scripture, when we were upon the praedicate whether the Scripture be sufficient to Salvation. And surely I may do this legally, because I am a respondent; and I may do it also more boldly, because I know they cannot make good the praedicate, that this Church is (thus formed) infallible in its Decres. And as to his exclusions then we could confront him with the opinion of Alphonsus de Castro, who would have had a chapter against him for his exclusions: since he maks the acceptation of the diffused Church to be necessary to inerrability. And as to the Chief Pastour and Head, he speakes it cum privilegio surely, as if not only what the Pope said was not to be questioned, but also what is said of him. They will never prove that there ever was to be any such Chief Pastour and Head of the Church universal, dejure nor can they ever prove that there was de facto, any one so called, till Boniface the third; who had the Title granted him by Phocas. But non fuit sic ab initio. And the rule is good, Errores ad sua principia reducere est refellere. And therefore either the Church was not allwaies infallible, or was infallible without Councils, because for above three hundred yeares was no General Council; and therefore why doth he urge the necessity of Councils unto infallibility? And when there was Councils afterwards till Trent Council inclusively either the Councils were fallible with a Pope, or might be infallible without him; because till Boniface the third there was no such Pope as Head, or Head as Pope. And therefore why do they urge the necessity of a Pope for their infallibility? This he did [...] in [Page 994] before: and now should have been proved; since he knew that this is not granted on both sides, as the Scripture is to be the Word of God.
And he that is a seeker of his religion will never find the Pope to be in the Church, as a King in his kingdome; who is no part of the representative properly. And if he would have the Pope no more than part of the Representative, he should be no more Head of the Church than as a Speaker in an Assembly. And how should he be then the Church virtual, as the high Romanists doth speak of him? And therefore the Pope in the time of the Trent Council would not suffer that title of the Council to proceed, that it should be called the Representative, because though he and his Courtiers esteemed him the Head of the Church (and so should have been superiour to the body of the Church) yet he conceived that they intended to take him in confusely in the Representative, and so to exclude his Head-ship. But secondly, He then allows a man to be a seeker of his Religion: then he doth allow him that liberty (which he sometimes hath disputed against) namely to exercise his judgement of discretion in matters of Religion; for he would have him most prudently judge himself bound to to joyn her (the Church) in Faith, being convinced that she directed most securely in Faith. So this is the [...]r sense: they allow discretion to joyn with them; but not to differ. Thirdly, Should he be bound to joyn himself to the whole Church, or not? If to the whole, then to that part locally which most agrees with the whole in Doctrine, and discipline, and practice. But then can he not most prudently joyn himself to the Roman Church, because that hath gone away from the Catholique in all those particulars. And therefore we may conclude it to be our wisdom to find our direction in Faith most securely in the Scripture.
N. 20.This number he spends in the power of Councils: To [Page 959] such power I made exceptions, he would here remove them. The first about the uncertainty of the irregularity of the Pope. To this he saies, he to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council, and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head, to preside, he is right; these acts do supply all defects in the election. But first, Suppose he be not a Priest. Can the Churches submission or admission of him make him a regular Pope? And this, That he is a Priest, they cannot be sure of by certainty of Faith, according to their Principles, unless they had an omniscience to know the intention of the Ordainer; and whether he was a right Bishop or not. Secondly, If so, then Cajaphas was a right High Priest, as before: and yet he erred with the Council. Therefore a Pope with the Council may erre. Caiaphas was submitted to, was admitted by the assembly of the Jews: but this before.
And as to that he saies, put the case of a Pope defining with a lawful Council, and then prove him fallible, if you can. We answer, First it seems then he would not stand to the maintaining of a Popes infallibility without a Council. And so then he and the Jesuits must differ in the point of infallible direction. Secondly, If the Pope be not infallible without a Council, then is it not infallible in a Council. What will they here say, Is he infallible without a Council, as the Jesuits say; or with a Council onely. If not without, then not with. My reason is this: because without the infallibility of the Pope, we are not sure of the legality of the Council. For though we suppose an assistance of the Spirit of God to Councils: yet can we not be assured whether to such a Council in particular; this is yet a question; because we cannot tell whether it be a right General Council or not; not by certainty of Faith surely, unless the Pope be infallible in determining this to be a right General Council. Thirdly, [Page 996] Take the former proposition of his, He to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council, and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head, so as to preside, he is right. Thus he in effect and terms most what; and then we make an assumption to it. This was in the four General Councils; The Christian Emperour, he did call them; he did preside in them, therefore where is his conclusion? Fourthly, General Councils are fallible though they do not erre: It is possible that they may erre, and therefore are they fallible. Well but more, The Trent Council did erre, the Trent Council was a General Council, according to them; therefore the major is proved already: they erred in the Latin Bible: they erred in half Communion: they erred in point of merit; which is not spoken exclusively to more.
As for the 3. exception he refers me to Bellarmin lib. 2. de concil. cap. 19. that although a Council without a Pope cannot define any article of Faith, yet in time of Schism, it can judge which is true Pope. Ans. first, How could he say that the Church is so direct a way that fools could not erre; (as before) when yet he will suppose such a time of Schism and Bellarmin too, quando nescitur quis fit verus Papa, when it is not known who is the true Pope. Well then during the time of the Schism who shall determin emergent controversies? Neither is the Council called; and what a tedious debate amongst them may there be to determin who should be next to Christ, and if the Council should be as long in calling, and as long in being as the Trent Council was (forty three years in both as some account) how many might be damned in their direct way? or else it was not so perillous for some controversies to be undetermined infallibly. Yea, but if so, then why do they so much press a necessity of a living Judge for deciding all controversies? According to the vehemency of their plea, [Page 997] and the necessities of the Church, the Living Judge should not only be alwaies infallible: but this infallible Judge should be alwaies living. But secondly, During the time of the Schism, how shall we do for the Calling of a true Council? To this he saies, for this the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves. Ans: Then the power of calling Councils is not absolutely in the Pope; but in actu primo, it is radicated in the Prelats, though bound from the second act by use of their Church unless in falling. Then a supream Ecclesiastick Authority is not by divine institution subjected in the Successour of St. Peter. And then what becomes of their Monarchy: It seems then that Fabrick is not built upon Gods ground, because no practice can hold good against a divine institution. And thus the Head of the Church must shake: at least the Jesuits will shake their heads at this Doctrine. If there be an absolute necessity of a true Pope to call Councils, then that which he saies is not good; if but of conveniency, then we may end the controversie, because either all controversies are not necessary to be ended, or may possibly be ended without their Head of the Church.
In the next place he toucheth then upon my exception against infallibility quoad nos of General Councils, by reason of doubtfulness of their lawfulness upon the calling of them; since in the old time Emperours called them, not Popes. His answer now is, Your Church which never had nor shall have General Councils, is to seek in all things belonging to them, our Church in every age since Constantine, hath been visibly assembled in General Councils, &c.
Therefore he does well to give us a kind check for our presumption of thinking our Church comparable [Page 998] with theirs. First, We do not arrogate to our selves a power of calling General Councils: yet we may know what belongs to General Councils as well as another particular Church. And time was when Anselm had by Urban some comparable respect in the honour of being called as Pope of the other world. And secondly, As for their Church to have been visibly assembled almost in every age since Constantines time; if he understands it as called by the Roman Authority, it is denied. And therefore what makes this for them, since their Church was not visibly assembled, as comprehending the whole, but pro rata parte, as another particular Church, In the Nicene Council their Church had no real superiority, though it had a titular priority [...], as Nilus speaks, because that was at first the Imperial City. Thirdly, How was their Church visibly assembled in the fifth General Council, when their Head would not come to the Council upon the debate of the tria Capitula? and yet the Council is to be accounted good without the Pope, yea against him; or else the number of Councils must fail.
What he saies about Emperours is inconsiderable, It is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institutitution by which, either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world; or that when they have that dignity, they be by divine Institution invested with a power to call Councils. Ans. First, We may then prove a negative out of Scripture, by his first words; and to be evident too; which yet were not good, if verbum non scriptum were good. Secondly, We by the same law prove a negative to Popes in the same tenour. Thirdly. As for Emperours, we have more for them in the proportion of Kings: for we have a promise for them that they should be nursing Fathers, and Queens nursing mothers; which surely was accomplished by the first [Page 999] Christian Emperour. Yea the term of Kings was then common for Emperours. Yea had not the Kings of the Jewish Church Divine Authority in matters of Relion; Circa sacra? They had not only [...] to defend it: but [...] to rule it, they were not only Protectours of the Church, as they are called in the Trent histories, but governors, and by these were the foure Generall Councils called; namely by the Emperours without any contradiction of Councils. Did the Nicene Council question Constantines authority to call Councils, whether it was Divine or not? How many humble expressions and actions of respect and subjection did come from the Councils and the Fathers, which are not indeed suitable to the deportment of that Pope who trod upon the neck of Frederick the Emperour; or of him that threw the Duke of Venice under his table with the dogs? The competition then betwixt Emperours and Popes in point of Ecclesiastique authority, as to the outward part of Religion, will come to this. No institution of Popes, in their sense, by Scripture. There is under an Evangelicall promise an apopintment of kings to be nursing Fathers and of Queens to be nursing Mothers. And in triumphum, we might compare them as to the practice of the primitive times; there was calling of Generall Councils by Emperours; none by Popes till they usurped. Therefore Ocham to the King may end it, Tu me defende gladio, ego te defendam verbo, do you defend me with the Sword? I will defeind you with the word. This to his first answer.
Secondly as for the Praelates of the Church we can shew Divine institution, Actes 20.28. Bishops placed by the Holy Ghost over all the flock; to feed or govern the Church of God. And Ephes. 4. Not lay Magistrates but only Ecclesiastical are said to be given us by Christ for the worke of the ministry &c. Ans. First I think that the adversaries living would goe near to starve if they would eate nothing [Page 1000] before they proved that feeding there should be understood of governing; as it must be, unless he spoke in a proper disjunctiveness, when he said [feed or govern] and if so he gives us leave to take it not for him, who must get out of it the sense of governing, this indeed is laboured by Bellarmin specially; and he contests much for it with Luther in his first b. de Rom. Pontif. 15. ch. Upon that which is said to St. Peter by Christ, feed my sheep. His argument is from the term [...] which sometimes signifies to rule: right; but it doth not follow that it should therefore signifie so there upon the 21. of St. Iohn. we may therefore confront him with a stronger argument. [...] is twice used there, [...] but once. Now [...] doth not signifie to rule; therefore we should rather expound the other word by these, then by it self. And as for his instance out of the second Ps. 9. ver. where he would have the Hebrew to bear the same sense, he is mistaken or worse (as I think I have noted before) for the Hebrew word there doth not at all signifie to feed, but to break, it is not [...] but [...] as in Ben Israels edition. And by others though it be not read with a Vau, yet there is a cholem; and Montanus renders it [conteres] thou shalt break. So then as to the former Text, Acts 20.28. It can no way be proved that [...], there is to be construed to rule, which is only to their purpose. Yea Montanus, and the Translation of the Syriack, and of the Arabick, and of the Aethiopick, render it not by regere but by pascere. Yea 2. Suppose that the word therefore doth signifie to govern, yet doth it not therfore follow that the Text should be understood of Bishops of proper name; but may be understood of simple Presbyters and without any derogation to Episcopal government; because they have a power under the Bishops to rule their particular Churches; namely their particular flocks, although they have no power [Page 1001] over the other pastours as the Bishops have, who succeedeb the Apostles in the point of government as St. Ierom speaks in his Epistle to Evagrius. 3. Suppose the verbe be to be understood of ruling, and suppose that Text to mean, as some, proper Bishops (taking [...] in an higer notion) yet my Adversaries will be yet disappointed of their end by that Text, because we have found Divine institution of Kings and we cannot find in this Text an institution of Bishops to be above them in calling of Councils, and ordering the outward part of the Church. Yea 4. if that Text doth intend a power in them, by the Holy Ghost, of calling Councils, then for ought I see, the power must be primarily subjected in them and not in the Pope; and therefore he must not be the chief pastour and Head of the Church; which contradicts them: if then they intend by the Text a proof of such a Divine institution of Praelates to govern the Church as to call Councils thereby, this derogates from the Pope: And if they intend not such a power to be given to the Praelates as to call Councils; how doth this prove that the Pope is to call Councils, from this Text? Yea how do they prove that Kings or Emperours are not to call Councils: for though Praelats are to govern the Church, Yet Kings or Emperours might call Councils, these are not opposits but agreeable; because the Praelats may govern in sacris, the Kings or Emperours circa sacra. The speculative decision is to be by the Praelats: the outward administration by the Emperours. The potestas in actu signato in them; in actu exercito, in the Emperours.
And as for the other Text Eph. 4. We need say nothing; or only this, that the not naming of Lay Magistrates there, doth not exclude them else where. Doth it? If it does not, where is their argument? If it doth, then by the same law of consequence there are [Page 1002] no Praelats to have any Divine Authority for the good of the Church, because where it is said, Kings shall be the nursing Fathers and Queens the nursing Mothers, there is no mention of Ecclesiastical Praelats. So then let them speak no more of the Fathers of the Church. And then 2. This comes not to the point of the question, that Lay Magistrates are not here spoken of but only Ecclesiasticall are said to be given us by Christ for the work of the Ministry; for to the work of the ministry no man asserts the power of a Lay magistrate, but external government is contradistiguished to the work of the ministry; which consists in ministerial acts. Yea 3. Is that Text to be understood of government of the Church? If it be not, then it is impertinently produced. If it be, then by his former argument, the Pope is excluded, because here is no mention of any appointment of him sub ratione singulritatis and in way of eminencie, nay not of any priority: and therefore he by this account in all his Pontificalaibus is but an human Creature. Therefore upon the account of the Text we will stand our ground, and not be carried about with every wind of doctrine.
Thirdly the Emperour is not by Divine institution Lord of the Christian world, the power of the chief Pastour of the universal Church is coextended to the universal Church. Ans. First Dato, suppose there were by Divine institution (which will never be proved) a chief pastour of the universal Church, yet the Emperour might be Lord of the Christian world too in his external faculty. And therefore this concludes not. 2. this Language was not knowen till Boniface the third, in the seventh century. The Roman Bishop had the honour to be called the Bishop of the first Sea or seate. And yet not the first Bishop in way of jurisdiction, 3. The Emperour may be as much Lord of the Christian world by Divine institution, as well as the Pope: for both are by [Page 1003] election, the Pope is to be chosen by Cardinals, which cannot shew a Divine institution. But then also he allowes Political proceeding from a temporal power: yet he will not have it to be an Ecclesiastical calling, such an one as the Pope called them by at the same time. Ans. Not Ecclesiastical subjective, but Ecclesiastical objective it was. And yet also Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote. And therefore it may be the Hebrew word Cohen signifieth both Magistrate and Priest. Order, and freedom, and time and place belong to the Magistrates administration. And as for the Pope (in their sense) his giving an Ecclesiastical call at the same time it is utterly denied; unless he could give a call before he was borne. And as for the Bishop of Rome, he met at Councils upon the same order with the rest. Such things he should have proved rather then said. And therefore that was falsly spoken by him that the Politicall proceeding was subservient to the Ecclesiastical. Ans. Non entis nulla accidentia. There was no such Ecclesiasticall call by a Pope: for there was no such Pope. And 2. Though the Emperours calling was serviceable to Ecclesiasticall affairs, yet the Ecclesiastical persons that met were servants to him therein. And Bishops of Rome have not abhorred such acknowledgements herein. And whereas some Romanists have compared the Pope to the Sunne, and the Emperour to the Moon; though some Popes since have eclipsed the Emperour: yet some Emperours before have not only Eclipsed the Pope, but have put him out.
Therfore had he good cause to say, Peradventure sometimes Emperours might adventure to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastour. Ans. surely there is more due when Adversaries will give so much. Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem. But this will not content us, there was no real entity of such a Supreme Pastour. Nor was he so much as then Ens rationis. No; the foure Generall Councils, a primo ad ultimum, were menaged [Page 1004] in the call and ratification by the Emperours. They gave them not onely countenance and a vote in point of belief, but also their external establishment. They began and ended them. Idem est principium destitutionis & constitutionis. So the Nicene Council was called by Constantine the Great. The Council of Constantinople was called by Theodosius the elder. The Council of Ephesus by Theodosius the younger. The Council of Chalcedon by Martianus, and by them they had their confirmation. And so Councils are to be called, as our Church in the 21. Article.
The fourth answer he passeth here.
As to the fifth answer, he saies; these Elections do appear by authenticated testimonies, and confirmation. Ans. But their Election may not appear free thereby. That which may appear in the fact, may not appear in the qualities. And therefore if it were not free, it were as well no Election, as if the Council be known notoriously to use such proceedings we are not to acknowledge it for a lawful Council. And this puzzles and disturbs our assent more. Infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in Councils is necessary to infallible Decrees: this they suppose. In Councils unlawful there is no infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost: this they must grant; and in effect here he doth, otherwise how can we disacknowledge any Council, or not acknowledge it for a lawful Council? Now then since a Council may by such proceedings notoriously known nullifie it self, how shall we be certain whether a Council doth not morally forfeit its assistance? Although imdem est non apparere et non esse, as to outward censures: yet this is not enough for an infallible assent of the Decrees to have a charitative opinion of lawful proceedings. If I be deceived in my charitative opinion, no ill consequence: but if I be deceived in my opinion of the Council, I wrong my self in misgrounding my Faith. [Page 1005] In point of charity no man is bound to infallibility; but in we point of Faith we are, & therefore I do not well see can ever be ascertained of the infallibility of a Council, how unless we be ascertained of an impossibility in the Council to lose the infallible assistance. For as we cannot believe the Church's infallibility in one point, unless it be infallible in all according to Mr. Knot & my adversaries late Principles; so we cannot be assured of the lawfulness of any one Council by the certainty of Faith, unless we can be assured of the lawfulness of all. Now then if they can infallibly inform us that every Council shall have infallible assistance, we will not discuss at all that which cannot be, namely whether it hath forfeited the priviledges by such proceedings: but though it hath not forfeited its moral being by such proceedings, we yet want a proof infallible whether so or not; and then if not, whether it shall have infallible assistance. For ought I know the Holy Ghost may be said to preside there and yet not rule; as Bellarmin in his 1. B. de con. cap. 18. saies that the Pope in a Council may be considered as President or as Prince: as President, so he is to follow the major part; as Prince, so he can rescinde all. Now which hath the Holy Ghost following the major part, or the Pope; Is the Holy Ghost tied to the Council, as the Heathens fastned their Gods to their Cities? No they will say: not to all, but lawful Councils. But let us then know by the Holy Ghost which Councils shall be lawful. Otherwise, though infallible direction will never deceive us, we may be deceived in infallible direction; since there is acknowledged by him a possibility of humane malice and weakness, and factions, and bandyings, and domineering self-interest. Unless they can prove an extrinsecal over-ruling providence promised by God against humane malice, &c. to all Councils, I shall never be sure whether they are not in any one. And therefore that general Text, the [Page 1006] gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, will not infer infallibility in a Council, unless it could infer infallibility of the lawfulness according to them; and yet not so neither according to us, that Text is made good to every member of the Church invisible: and is that therefore infallible? If it be, why then is infallibility arrogated to the Church visible as the onely subject? if it be not, then the Text doth not prove absolute infallibility; but onely security against damning errours or practice. Not that the Church visible is not a mean of that security; but therefore not a mean universally infallible, but with specification. Sixthly you ask, how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Council is General. To this he answers by giving us the means or signs of this knowledge; First publique Summons. Secondly, publique appearance of Prelats made upon these summons from all parts of the world. Thirdly, publick setting, publick subscribing, publick divulging their Decrees and Definitions acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present, denied by no man to be theirs with the least show of probability, no more than such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament. Ans. Is here all? The question was how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Council is general. And now we must be answered with a probability. If that which may be known probably be known divinely, eo ipso, upon that account, then a probable Argument may make an infallible conclusion. And why then do they urge infallibility of the Church for point of Faith, which they can never prove? It less would have made Faith, they should not in prudence have combated for infallibility. But as long as the conclusion follows the worse part; and the effect doth not exceed the cause; and the assent cannot be higher than the ground of it, this answer of his is too short for the question. Secondly, were not all these necessary conditions of a General [Page 1007] Council belonging to the Trent Council? And why then was not the French Church perswaded to take it for a General Council? Why doth the French Church say, transeat concilium Tridentinum.
Therefore that which he saies is not so, that all these motives make it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the church. It is evidently credible to neither. So that though the Definition of the Church were infallible in it self, as they say Scriprure is; yet is it not infallible to us, as they say Scripture is not without the Church. Therefore though the Definition were infallible yet cannot they thereby prove the Council infallible: but they are first to prove the Council infallible, then that which is a true definition of the church, will be infallibly true, because truly infallible.
So that he needs not tell us that if we beleive all her Definitions to be true, we will also believe this Definition to be true; since a particular is included in an universal. But before we believe all her Definitions to be true, we must demand some infallible assurance that such a Council is truly universal; and that an universal Council, is truly infallible. Otherwise we may believe one Definition, [...] to be true: and yet because not proposed infallibly, we cannot believe all her Definitions to be true. And therefore hath he not extricated himself out of insuperable difficulties.
As for the Hypothesis of the Trent Council, which, I said, was contradicted by the French Catholiques, he saies their Definitions concerning Faith were never opposed by France. Ans. Opposition is formally indeed in contradiction. But if they were denied onely, it were sufficient to us. Do my Adversaries think they may be saved, notwithstanding this denial? This surely they deny not. Well then, if they may be saved notwithstanding their denial, then we may be saved [Page 1008] also, though we do not subscribe some definitions of a Church. Then we are not bound absolutly under danger of damnation to believe all definitions of the Church. Then the Church hath not infallible authority. But 2. their withdrawing of their assent must draw in one of these two things, either that it was not a General Council (and this interpretativi makes a contradiction) or that General Councils are not infallible: and this in effect makes a contradiction too. Yea 3. Did not the King of France write to the Trent Council under the name of a Conventus; which they construed in derogation to a General Council? As appears in the Trent History. And 4. As for the distinction of the definitions concerning faith, as if they were not so disliked, but some things ordained for practice seemed less suitable to the particular state of that Kingdom, This runnes out as it comes in. For those things towards practice were ordained by the same Divine authority: were they not? Or did not the Holy Ghost assist them as to things of practice? If not, then proper obedience is not due to Councils, because proper obedience respects things of practice: but indeed the whole Council was rejected in gross; and therefore when Cardinal Ossat mediated for the King of France with the Pope, and the Cardinal urged the peace for him without the condition of accepting the Trent Council, he wrote to the King what the Pope said one morning to him, because he would not receive the Council, that he had no more rest that night then a damned soule in Ossat's Letters
And as to the seventh answer concerning some in the Trent Council who had Titles of Bishops; Bishop Iewell affirmes it in his Apol. Par. 6. P. 62.5. and he names St. Robert of Scotland, and Mr. Pates of England, And the former is named in the Trent History to have been a Bishop of the post, if we may say so of him for his [Page 1009] ability in riding post so well. And if forty Bishops do all agree in the same point of faith (as for a good while there were not many more) what can be be concluded against a possibility that they might be all sworne servants of the Pope? And he that will read the Trent History will finde sufficient cause not to suspect but to believe that Council not to have had due moralities, much less infallibility. His best way then to secure a Council against irregularities, is, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, that nothing shall happen destructive of secure direction Ans. this is not sufficient that nothing be destructive of secure direction against damnation (if he means it now so) but against all errour, for, this he is ingaged to make good, by former denying of that distinction of errour damnative and errour not damnative. Yet here he seems to warpe in this point. 2. The morality of the Synod is antecedent to its infallible assistance. Then we must have all defects of legality and proceeding removed, before we can be perswaded of its infallibility. 3. why did he except against Cajaphas for not being the true High Priest, if now Cajaphas may Prophesie, not knowing what he doth, before the spirit of truth, sent to teach the Church all truth, shall faile in his duty. So then notwithstanding there be not a legall High Priest, the spirit of God shall infallibly act the Council, as he did the Apostles. But here is a double duty for them, first that the spirit of God doth now infallibly teach the Church in all definitions. And then a second, that it is his duty to do so. Let them learn their duty not to tell God his duty. Did the Holy Ghost do his duty when Cajaphas and the Assembly condemned Christ? And why did not the Holy Ghost make eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum as infallible without a Pope, as the forty Bishops in the Trent Council, whereof some might be made Bishops, not because they did not differ from the rest, but that they might not differ in the Roman Faith, though against the Catholique [Page 1010] faith? And if they put the difference in this compare upon a Pope in Trent Council, none in Ariminum (though that answer will not serve as before) since Praelats have a also a power of calling Councils (as my Adversary before) in some cases, why should not the Holy Ghost rather assist eight hundred Praelats without a Pope, then forty with?
As to the eighth answer, he confesseth the substance of it, that for the first three hundred yeares there was no General Council, and tells us the cause; for persecution no Council could be gathered, But this satisfieth not, God is not wanting in necessaries, nor abundant in superfluities, as one of theirs saies. If councils had been allwaies necessary, he could have provided against persecutions, or for a Council notwithstanding. And why not in time of persecutions, as well as in the times of the Apostles? Were not those times of persecution?
Neither is that a sufficient reason because all this time the former doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh, and so notoriously; the Tradition of the Church diffused, and there remained also so universal a respect and obedience to the Chief Bishop of the Church. Ans. these three causes will not make one sound one. For by the first he means the known doctrine of the Apostles as delivered in writing or not; if so, then why may not we by the same cause sufficiently be directed by the word written. And as to the second, if he joyns Tradition of the Church as notoriously diffused, as a social mean of the direction, it may be denied upon this account only here, for that other Traditions of Heretiques were then mingled in the Church with pretense of coming from the Apostles. And therefore the Traditions of the Church was notoriously not distinguished. And as to the third, it is notoriously false that then there was a chief Bishop in their sense in those times. For how then could equal [...] be appointed in the Nicene [Page 1011] Council, if the Bishop of Rome had been Chief before? how could St. Cyprian have said that all the Apostles were equall, pari consortio praediti honoris & potestatis? How could the African Council have then cut off appeals to Rome. Then had there been no need of the feigning of a Canon to this purpose in the Nicene Council. How could St. Ierom have said that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in communi, in his Epistle to Evagrious? Neither was there such obedience then performed by them to the Praelats in all places, as may appear by the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; where he speaks of great Schisms. And also by Ignatius his earnest exhortations of submission to them.
Whence the Quartodecim ani although they opposed nothing clearely set down in Scripture were judged Heretikes for opposing the doctrin of the first Church, made evidently known by fresh Tradition. Ans. First if they will believe their Alphonsus de castro, they were not sententially declared Heretikes, because they were excommunicated. Indeed Victor would have excommunicated then, & fecisset, nisi Irenaeus illum ob hoc redarguisset; he would have done it, if Irenaeus had not chid him for this. By the way then was this also obedience to the chief Bishop, to chide him? So Alphons. in his 12. b. de haer. In verbo pascha. Yea 2. They may know that Eusebius doth give an account of the Asian observation to come from as good Tradition, as the the other. And surely the Asian Church was therfore the western; and therefore was it not the doctrin of the first Church. Yea also by the way how was Tradition of the Church notoriously diffused when there was Tradition against Tradition? And herein also did the Brittish Churches (which Tertullian speakes of) differ, from the western, following the Eastern Church. 3. Heresie is some times largely taken and doth then respect Schism of proper name: and so in a large sense it might by some be called Heresie, [Page 1012] although the matter of difference was no doctrin of faith. Ex verbis male prolatis oritur Haeresis. So Hereticks in a propriety of speech they could not be. 14. Alphonsus doth distinguish here upon in the same place, and saies they were accounted Hereticks not because they did simply observe it then, sed quia ita esse necessario faciendum credebant. And this then alters the case. And he explains himself further, because this did include a necessity of observeing Judaical ceremonies even after Christ's his coming. And so then this was contrary to the word written. And then this was not a Tradition. 5. They here shew the pride of Rome, to offer to cut off from her comunion all those who were of the other perswasion (who were not few, as may be seen in Eusebius's 5. B. 24.5. Ch.) for a thing simply of free observation; wherein difference makes no, variance, a [...] Irenaeus sent word to their Victor. ch. 6. [...] the difference of a fast (and so of a feast) doth commend the agreement of faith. He goes on, now as the Church could want Councils for so many years, so it could want Councils for the short space of schism. Right. But then so can it want Councils still: and therefore God hath not bound us over to the Church for our absolute direction upon necessity of Salvation. Councils are necessary to infallible direction; so my Adversaries hold: The Church for three hundred years and in time of a Schism can want Councils, as my Adversary here: so then there is no absolute necessity of their infallibility. And indeed there was much need of Councils in that space of the first three hundred years, in regard of Divisions, as since; and then if God provided sufficiently for his Church without them, he can and will do so still. And this is confirmed by my Adversary by these words of his, for the neccessity of new declarations is not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity, calling for instant remedy, and [Page 1013] remedy of this nature only. And he may goe on and say it not upon my opinion, but for himself, and ex animo, that Scripture alone will remedy this necessity. He needed not to put in you say. And as to that which he saies, that there remained many definitions oft former councils, and Traditions of the Church which alone served Gods church, these we have spoken to sufficiently before. Either the Definitions were concluded out of principles of Scripture; and Traditions were agreeable to the substance of Scripture, or not: if so, then they hold their virtue by Scripture: If not, they remain under debate whether they were infallible. Neither is Tradition before Scripture to be confounded with traditions after Scripture. We can grant more to the former than we can to the latter; both in the substance of the matter, and in the manner of certification.
And for the time after the old Testament was written, he doth well to say that it remained almost solely and alone to the Jews. For what was Iob? and why might not others of the learned Gentils travail for divine knowledge, as well as Pythagoras and Plato and Orpheus into Egypt as Iustin Martyr saith of them.
Ninthly he answers to the cause put of a Pope's differing from the Council upon a question; he saies, nothing shall be deferred; and yet no peril. For if it were necessary to have a present definition, the Holy Ghost would not forget to inspire the parties requisit to do their duties. Ans. Again, What necessity then of every controversie to be ended? Secondly, How should the people know whether the business required a present definition. Surely they may know by this, that it did not require a present definition, because if so, the Holy Ghost would not have forgot to have inspired the parties requisite to do their duties. Well then also we can say, that we may be as confident that what is not clearly delivered in Scripture doth not require a full definition, because if it had, the Holy Ghost would not have forgot [Page 1014] to inspire the Pen-men of Scripture to do their duties.
In the tenth answer he is very suspensive how to declare himself in the point of Ecclesiastical Monarchy. He saies, a Monarch in some Nations could not do all things without a Parliament. But he thinks himself on the surer side, that he is sufficiently assisted when he defineth with a Council. Ans. First, why do they not speak out and tell us which is which? The Church can end all controversies, as they say, but not that capital controversie about the Church. That whereby all things are to be made manifest, is that not to be made manifest? We must see all things by the light, but the light must be private. Do they declaim against private Spirits; and will not let us publiquely know the power of the Pope comparately to a Council, and yet they together must be the subject of publique Authority? And why do they tell us that the Scripture cannot prove it self, and therefore we must not resolve our Faith in that: and yet we must resolve our selves in the Authority of the Church, and yet the Church cannot tell us where this Authority Supreme is, or will not? And it is all one to us, for we are in the dark as well by their want of will to shew us light, as of power. But since it seems we may be saved in the opinion of the Jesuit, or in the opinion of the Sorbonist, we draw this advantage from it, that notwithstanding we know not infallibly which part of the contradiction to hold in points of question, we may yet be secured against damnation, pendenti lite. And what controversie is of such moment for an infallible Judge, as who it is? Secondly, Infallibility may be in one as well as in many; since it comes by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, then if they think God hath provided absolutely the most plain and expedite way for the direction of his Church, this must be placed in the Pope without a Council. I hope, the Holy Ghost needs no Council; which cannot [Page 1015] soon and easily be made in all the essentials. And therefore he should not have compared the Pope with a Monarch; but he should have compared upon this reckoning, a Monarch with the Holy Ghost. Then though a Monarch could not do all things without a Parliament, yet a Pope might do all without a Council: because the Pope should be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, as the Apostles were; but they do not think so of a Monarch. Again they think that the Pope is of divine institution; and that a King is meerly a creature of the peoples, and therefore he that hath a divine institution must needs have more divine assistance. Again when he defineth with a Council, he defineth not so much as Head of the Church, but as a Bishop in communi with the rest; as indeed anciently the custom was; and this derogates from the Monarchy of the Church. And if he had a priority of order, this doth not infer a priority of Jurisdiction over all the Church; which Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome abhorred.
Eleventhly he saies not one Council have been opposite to another. Ans. This proposition in terms is not true. The Council of Constantinople under Leo the Emperour decreed against Images. The second Council of Nice decreed for them. And what do they think of Pope Vigilius his judgement betwixt the Council of Chalcedon and the fifth Council of Constantinople about the Epistle of Ibas whether it conteined heresie or not? And is not the African Council against Appeals opposite to the Trent Council, which adds to the Catholique Apostolique Church the Roman, as making the Roman to be omnium Ecclesiarum matrem & magistram; of all Churches the mother and mistress. But this hath been touched before.
He goes on. In the Nicene he, (the Pope) erred not, as you will grant, nor in the three next General Councils, as the Church of England grants. Ans. He saies well, He [Page 1016] erred not in the first Nicene. But this antecedent will not make a conclusion or consequent, that therefore he hath not or cannot erre in others. It followeth not from a negative surely of one act to a negative of the power; they are to prove that he cannot erre, which is infallibility. But secondly, We say also that he could not erre in the other General Councils neither as Head of the Church, because he was not Head of the Church. He might have erred as a Bishop of Rome; but as Head of the Church he could not erre; not that we do assert him to have been Head of the Church; but because we say he was not Head of the Church; and therefore could not erre as such.
He goes on, He subscribed not in the Council of Ariminum, how then did he erre in it. Yea because he subscribed not, that Council is never accounted lawful by any but Arrians. Ans. He seems now to come to terms more moderate. Before he speaks of Councils to be confirmed by the Pope: Subscription is less; and more general. Every confirmation includes eminently a subscription; but every subscription makes not a confirmation. For they will not deny that other Bishops were wont to subscribe. Secondly, they may know that the 5. council of Constantinople went for good without his Subscription; nay notwithstanding what he published for the tria Capitula, which were condemned in the foresaid Council. Therefore if they have no better answer (the other Council being held good without his royal assent, yea notwithstanding his opposition) there will be another instance of a Council opposing a Council: namely the Council of Ariminum opposing the Council of the first Nicene. But thirdly, As to his reason why it was not acknowledged a lawful Council, because he subscribed not; I deny it upon Sozomen his account in his▪ 16. B. 23. ch. if he takes his not subscribing, as he seems to do, for the only cause. For he (Sozomen) saies there [Page 1017] [...], because neither the Bishop of the Romans, nor others did consent to them, & because many did dislike those things which were decreed by them. Had they then in the council of Ariminum decreed according to the Nicene Fathers, the council of Ariminum might have passed with St. Austin (notwithstanding the Bishop of Rome's not subscribing it) though not comparatively to the proof of Scripture: but we see here in this testimony three particulars against them. First, That he is here called the Bishop of the Romans: Not the Bishop signanter, nor the universal Bishop, nor the Bishop of the Church. He hath but his share with the rest, and limited by local Jurisdiction. Then how can they say that the Bishop of Rome, is the chief Bishop and Head of the Church? Secondly, We see here, that the Consent of others concurs towards the making of a Council lawful. And therefore the consent of the Bishop of Rome is not that which is the form informant of the Council, nor that which legitimates it. And thirdly, We see the reason, in part at least, to be, because they disliked those things which were decreed in the Council of Ariminum. And therefore if it had been a full meeting and consented to, yet had been exceptable against in regard of the matter, for surely the presence of all and their Subscription would not have made that matter to be good which was naught. For then they had declared that to be good which was not; and this had been an errour. Therefore though we receive the four General Councils, we are not bound to receive the Decrees of every Council, because we do not receive the Council simply, but do receive the Council for the Doctrine, not the Doctrine for the Council. Therefore upon the whole matter he had no great reason to admire my instancing in the Council of Ariminum.
Neither doth it follow that because one Council hath erred, therefore every one. Therefore that which he saies may be falsly reported, that some tax the councils of all ages of errours against Scripture. Every one may erre without any impossibility. Some have shewed a possibility by errour. But any ones possibility doth not inferre any ones act, much less of all. And if any one should have said so, they are acquainted well with their own answer, they are but private men that say so.
And why doth he tell us of Mechanicks, that speak disrespectively of all Councils? Let them first answer for some body of their black coate who said the Scripture was as a Nose of Wax. They make to us a need of the phrase, [...].
As to the twelfth answer, We have had the substance of it also before. The incustation of it makes it not solid. It doth no way follow that because their first Council Acts 15. said, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us; Therefore every Council even lawful should say so. This is to be proved, not propounded. And let Ferus their own give them the reason upon the fifteenth of the Acts. Let them either make it good that every assistance is infallible, or that every Council had that assistance which is infallible.
And their postulate, that Anathemas should conclude infallibility in their Councils, is denied them. Secondly, They bind more unto peace than Faith. And so their form in the Trent Council is, Si quis haec attentare presumpserit &c. If any shall presume to attempt tnese things, &c. Thirdly, Neither is there such danger by them, unless every one were bound to submit his assent. Yea me thinks the Trent Council doth speak in their beginnings somwhat more modestly of their Synod, ‘in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata,’ lawfully gathered together in the Holy Ghost. [Page 1019] Every meeting infallible is lawful, but every lawful meeting is not infallible.
As for his thirteenth Answer; he takes into a consideartion that of Nazianzen touching Councils: And he would distinguish, that he did not speak of a lawful free General council called and directed by the chief Pastour of the church prefiding in it. So then: He doth despise all Councils but such, doth he not? Yes they will say presently. Then he despised all Councils; for there were none so called, so directed, so presided in his time or before; nor presently after. The fifth Council of Constantinople (which was about 553. under Iustinian the Emperour) did sit and determin without and against Vigilius the Bishop of Rome. And secondly, As to that he saies, that Nazianzen's speech did respect the times of the Arrian troubles, which St. Basil takes notice of, we say suppose it: yet this also makes a prejudice to all Councils in the time of the Arrian heresie, because it is very like that several close Arrians might in Council mingle with the Orthodox. And thirdly, It is [...], if he concludes from a respect to Councils in the other Fathers unto an asserting of their infallibility. A genere ad speciem non sequitur affirmative; because they gave them some respect, therefore such as imported their infallibility, it doth no way follow. Fourthly, Neither doth Nazianzen's respect to the Nicene Council contradict him here: For although that might proceed well in his opinion, yet speaking de communi, and [...] he might say as he said. Neither doth it appear that he imbraced it upon its own authority intuitively, but because he approved the Doctrines, otherwise why should not eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum be as credible, as not half so many in Nice? But it may be that the conclusions in the Nicene Council were Prophetical; and the discourse of those of Ariminum was fallible. Yea, [Page 1020] but they will say that the Discourse in the Nicene Council was fallible, though the conclusions Prophetical. Let this be proved and we have done. But the Nicene Fathers as before, professed that they proceeded by principles of Scripture in their determinations. And so Bellarmin is driven to confess in his 12. l. de concil. Sed ex verbo Dei per ratiocinationem deducunt conclusiones, they deduce their conclusions from the Word of God by discourse. Let Bellarmin then answer Stapleton.
At the latter end of this Section, He takes me up for a saying of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Council of Trent. And he is confident that that account of him hath no credible ground. Ans. Surely as good ground as Brierly had for several passages which he produceth out of our Authors. And if some of theirs have professed to take testimonies upon his credit, because they had not Books by them; I may be easily excused for asking the question whether the Bishop of Bitonto did not say so and so in the Council of Trent. He that asks a question seems to be wary of asserting. And if the opinion of one able Doctor be sufficient to make a point probable, as some of them have lately said, this point of fact is not altogether unprovided of some hope of probability. My Author is Bishop Iewel, who speaks it more than once in his Apology.
Neither have they cause to bragge that their Church have been the men, who were still imployed in the upholding the Authority of Councils. Surely my Adversaries did pass by Cajetan, and Bellarmin, and Valentia; and did not take notice of what they have said towards fallibility of Councils even lawful, that so infallibility and Monarchy might be necessarily devolved from heaven, as a [...] into the Pope's lap. All that make perstriction of the Authority of Councils are not hereticks, it seems, because some that are good Roman Catholicks do speak of [Page 1021] their fallibility, so, that this infallibility should be intailed upon the Bishop universal. And so they differ from my Adversaries platforme of infallible direction: In this he shewes himself highly displeased for offering to compare the Determinations of Trent with the word of God. He thinkes it fine doctrine that determinations of Councils should be examined by such as I and he is. Ans. it is halfe an argument for us that they are angry at this: But first we do not speak of an Authoritative examination, which is forensical, but a rational inquiry which is for private satisfaction. 2. If the Decrees of that Council be indeed infallible, they will abide the test: if not, how can we believe them; Do they think, 3. That we are more bound to believe the council of Trent, then the Beraeans were bound to believe what was said by St. Paul, without discussing; since specially they are pleased in the Trent Council somtimes to joyn St. Paul as partner with St. Peter in the honour of their Church? 3. We may surely finde more cause to examine the Trent Council then some others; since it hath not yet obteined in the Christian world the reputation of a lawful General Council: therefore though we doe not examin others yet this we may. 4. would they not have us preferre the doctrin of Trent before any differing from it? yes surely; then we must inquire into it, and privately judge it: otherwise we make a blind choice. Fifthly, If the consent of the major part, which is most immediatly considerable in a Council, should morally bind, why should we not as well believe the Council of Ariminum; since what else he hath pretended against it, is not cogent? Sixthly, If they think that one cannot think well of a lawful General Council, unless he believes their infallibility, that proposition is easily denied. They may be fallible, and yet not faulted by me in piety or prudence. Infallible conclusions do not follow upon moral principles. The one makes [Page 1023] them careful, the other faithful: but though they do not deceive me, they may be deceived themselves. And if their infallibility did depend upon their piety and prudence, how are we infallibly certain of that upon which their infallibility should be grounded?
Nor does my consideration of a Council betray in me a want of charity or humility, as he supposeth: they have themselves as Disparates to Theological Faith; and are not of the same Conjugation. Humility disposeth me to think of my self meanly; Charity disposeth me to think better of others, because I know my own imperfections and do not know anothers perfections, as Aquinas notes: But if these were dispositive unto Faith, yet not causal: If causal of Faith, yet of Faith humane, not divine; unless I did see Gods Word for believing men. This is the [...]; if they can prove this, we have no more to say. Until then I can love my Adversaries, and think humbly of my self: And yet cannot be perswaded that my Adversaries are infallible. And if they were infallible in the dispute, how should infallibility be the prerogative of the Council confirmed by the Pope? So then as long as I can give reverence to a Council without present Faith, I am not posed, but they who must beg the question.
In this he chargeth me with shifting, because I said now, let us not see the opinions by infallibility: but the infallibility by your determinations, whereas else where I say, you should go a priori and shew that your Church is infallible, and therefore her definitions to be admitted. This in effect he supposeth to be my shift to evade his pressure of me. Ans. No such matter. Good cause for both distinguish reasons and respects. First, I hope they think it lawful to urge both waies in a different kind of discourse, we demonstrate the effect by the cause; we know the cause by the effect. Secondly, [Page 1022] The way a Priori is more distinct, and therefore this would presently make an end of the controversie, if it could be effected; because it satisfies us in the cause. Prove the infallibility, and then we fall down or rise up to the definitions. They are then to be taken ipso facto; and they produce Faith ex opere operato, as we may speak. This the way of nature: But when they cannot make this good, then the other way, and quoad nos is to shew us their infallibility by their determinations; and an easie way it is to us to shew them the unlikeliness of infallibility by their determinations. For it is sufficient to the negative of infallibility, to find one errour in any of their definitions; but it is not sufficient to them for the affirmative of infallibility, to prove that the Church hath not erred in some particular definitions. The latitude of the power is not discharged by some acts.
If it hath erred but once, we are sure it can erre, then infallibility is destroyed; if it hath not erred in some, yet it doth not follow that it hath not erred in others. Yea, if it hath erred in none, we cannot ex vi formae conclude infallibility, unless it be proved that the power of erring is bound in the Church Representative, as the Schoolmen say the power of sinning is bound in the Church Triumphant. Thirdly, We are now upon the Hypothesis incidently; and so it is very reasonable for us to go this way with them; because a particular Church hath not the priviledges of the universal Church. It is generally supposed that the universal Church cannot erre in things necessary; but this is not granted to any Church of one denomination. Now the Trent Council belongs to a particular Church, and therefore as to that, our way of proceeding is not irrational. And therefore all that he saies upon this argument comes to nothing. If all the strength of Rome can sufficiently [Page 1024] reinforce the former Texts against us for the Church universal, and then for them, reducant nos; if they cannot, redeant ad nos, as the Father said.
N. 23.This Section is in good part made up of repetitions towards the reurging on their be half 1. Ep. to Tim. 3.15. How much Paper is taken up with petitions and repetitions; petitions of the principle, and repetitions of what was said before. Upon this I distinguished of a double Pillar; the Principal, Scripture; a subordinate one, the Church. And now he saies pleasantly, this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not. The Church must still be a true Pillar and ground of truth. Ans. Distinguishing is plain dealing; double dealing makes confusion. Therefore we distinguish again; the Church may be a true Pillar and ground or establishment of truth, ex officio, and subordinately; yet not infallible. That which is infallible is such; all that is such is not infallible. Dic aliquid contra ut simus duo. He should have contradicted or said nothing. The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture; right: But the copulative doth not alwaies equally reduplicate the act to diverse objects. In the Proverbs it is said, Fear God and the King: yet the King is not to be feared equally with God. So they believed God and Moses, in the curt fashion of Hebrew speech: But they did not believe Moses as they did God. God for himself upon his own veracity; Moses for God. Now let them prove that God speaks by the Church, as he spake by Moses, and we have done. God spake to Moses face to face. Did he speak so to the Church? He spake then to Moses immediatly: doth he speak so to the Church. He spake to and by Moses who was King in Iesuron. Aaron was formally the High Priest: Doth he speak so now to and by civil Magistrates? If he does, where are the priviledges of the Church, which they vaunt of? If not, why do they urge that [Page 1025] Text? It is true, Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote; but this maxim is not for them: Their maxim is inverted, Sacerdos est mixta persona cum Rege. Moses morally wrought miracles; so does not now the Church. If Xaries could indeed have wrought miracles in the Indies, why did he corrupt the Gospel? In short, when they can prove, that the Church speaks all they speak by Revelation from God, as the Jews believed, that what Moses spake, he spake from God, then they may apply that Text to God, and the Church, which is applied to God and, Moses. The sense of their believing Moses was, that they believed, what he said, to be spoken from God; this is now the question of the Church, therefore they should not have compared Moses, and the Church, but Moses, and an Apostle. This had been more Symbolical; but this would not have been serviceable. Well then; if they would have been contented with this, that the Church should have been subordinate to Scripture, the quarrel would soon be ended. What then? Would they have the Scripture subordinate to the Church? Adieone pudorem cum pudicitia perdiderunt?
So he saies, The Church was by St. Paul called the pillar, and ground of truth, without subordination to Scripture, as then not written. Ans. Will they hold themselves to this, that what is not said in Scripture in terms, is not to be construed as the sense of the Scripture? If they will, then what will become of their points of difference, as to Scripture? If they will not, then this distinction is not to be rejected upon that account, because it is not said so there. But secondly, His reason, because Scripture then was not written, is to be examined. If he understands it absolutely, it is false. Was not the Old Testament then written? And if the Romanist fetcheth his Monarchy of the Church from the Anaology to the Jewish High Priest, why [Page 1026] should not the Old Scripture be sufficient to subordinate the Church. And if the Scripture was then sufficient, as St. Paul saies, to make wise unto Salvation before the Canon was finished; was it not able to bear the Churches dependance upon it? And is it not as able now, when the Canon is compleated? As to the times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written, we have several times spoken before. Put it into a Syllogism, thus; That which God speaks we are bound to believe upon account of his veracity. That which the Church speaks to us, God speaks; therefore. Now as to the major, whosoever denies it is interpretative an Atheist. The assumption then is that we stick at, though the Roman accounts us, for this, not Christians: The times of the Church before any part of Scripture was written, were chiefly those, wherein that proposition was consented to; and yet not by all that knew the doctrine of the Church. Therefore those who then did believe, had not only a Faith disposing them to believe that what God saies is true: For this is said by Aristotle in effect [...] this is a proposition of reason, that what God saies is true, but they had a divine Faith habituating them to the belief that that which was spoken by the Church was truly communicated to the Church from God. Now here the hinge turns, whether their Faith terminated upon the Church, as the subjectum quo, or upon the matter delivered by the Church, as the subjectum quod. We deny the former, because divine Faith cannot rise upon humane testimony; & therefore Faith could not be caused by such a testimony which is humane, without a Revelation from God that what the Church did speak, it did speak from God. Therefore the church had it self then towards Faith, as proposing the matter, not as resolving the assurance. And can we not then as well be now assured [Page 1027] that what the Scripture doth propose is the Word of God, as what the Church proposed then was the Word of God? And so Faith must at length not only cause us to believe that what God saies is true, but also to believe that God hath said this, therefore.
He likes not then my reason for the subordination of the Church to Scripture, not for the reason against which other reasons will soon be found. Ans. This will require a very good intention, but thus he is pleased to put off my discourse. Bellarmin proves his propositions by Scripture, by reason, by Fathers. Therefore he makes his heads of proof, and holds of Faith. And another would say that my Adversaries were beaten out of all their holds. He saies to my reason here, against it other reasons will soon be found, when they are found we shall find answers. Let them tell me from whom the Church hath its authority: They will say from Christ, Well he is supposed the Author: But where is the Instrument and Patent for our knowledge that Christ hath passed such a grant? The Church saith it, they will say. But first. The Church Universal doth not say it. Secondly, who of them hath proved that the Church is [...] they bear witness of themselves, therefore their testimony is not true; not in modo, if it were true in materia. Thirdly, What the Church can say amounts but to a prudential motive, or congruous inducement: but what is it which grounds Faith, and binds Faith, and makes it a divine belief, if not what is said in Scripture? Without this what is the Church but a company of men in naturalibus. The Roman doth not so much believe this or that because God saies it; but they believe God saies it, because the Church saies it. But the Church virtual, in the Pope; Representative, in a Council; diffusive in the people, signifies nothing without religion. The question then is, what religion makes the Church, which we are to believe. [Page 1028] Not reason satisfies us in this, because some principles of Religion do transcend reason; and because reason cannot by its principles produce Faith of proper name: then we must have somwhat, which is supposed as a common principle, whereby true Religion is discerned. Not the Church: For the question is, which is the Church. What then, but Scripture? Let them then think upon the former Texts for sufficiency of Scripture, which if they were acknowledged, would save us this dispute. And let them think upon that Text, Esa. the 8. the 20. ‘To the Law and to the Testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.’ That, which is referred to another for direction, is subordinate thereunto; The Church is referred to the Law, and to the Testimony: therefore it is subordinate. If they speak not according to this word as written; it is because there is no light in them.
Another Text may be named; 1. Epist. of St. Peter, the 1. ch. 23. ver. ‘Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible; by the Word of God, which liveth, and abideth for ever.’ So the Apostle, from whence we thus argue: That, which is begotten of the Word, is subordinate to it; the Church is begotten by the Word. Therefore their argument is retorted by the contrary; For the Word in the substance of it, must be before the Church; because the Church is begotten by the Word; therefore the Church must depend upon the Word, ‘which liveth, and abideth for ever:’ and this better suits the standing charracter of Scripture, than the loose, and fluent, or fluxive way of Tradition. And how comes Tradition into the world? By the first Church, they will say. Well, and how came the first Church to be such? What did they joyn together in the profession of Religion, [...], as some say the world came together by the casual concurrence [Page 1029] of Atoms? The first Church viritim was begottten by the Word through the Spirit; so in the ver. before, ‘seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.’ Then all is to be resolved into the Word: quod est primum in generatione, est ultimum resolutione. So Aquinas, Omne reducitur ad principium. All is to be reduced to the first principles. Therefore they will never reconcile St. Paul, and Irenaeus, unless they admit my distinction of the Church: Then that which Frenaeus saith will well agree with that of St. Paul. St. Paul saies, as we commonly read it, the Church is the Pillar, and ground of truth: St. Irenaeus saith, the Scripture is the Pillar of truth. Both agree, for subordinata non pugnant. Subordinates make no warre.
Let them not therefore tell me, that what God tells me by his Church I am to admit; this we admit: But let them tell me how I shall infallibly know, that he tells me so by the Church. And let them tell me how I shall know the Church, but by letters of credence, namely in Scripture. How can I divine whether there is to be a Chureh, and which is the true Church, and which the true Religion, without Scripture? And Nemo tenetur derinare, as the saying. So that that, which he saies, that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture, depend [...] neither upon Scripture, nor Catholick Church, nor reason. Take Scripture in the matter of it, and that which he saies hath no consistency. In saving Religion there is nothing before it, not only in signo rationis, but also in time; because the Church is begotten of the word of God. We deny not, that the Church is made use of to dispose us to faith of Scripture; but this doth not resolve us; because it self, of it selfe, resolvs but into a moral capacity, which makes not faith properly called, not faith Divine, therefore in Genere Credibilium, the first proposition to the Church is, that the [Page 1030] Scripture is the word of God; and without its testimonies of the Church, it cannot be said to be credible in the sense of divine faith. Therefore if he meanes that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture, namely upon the account of humane faith, we may grant it of the universal Church: but what is this to our purpose, since we are disputing about faith divine? If he takes it of divine faith; this would be to purpose; but that it is not true.
Yet he proceeds, So he that begins to be a Christian cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first principles of sciences. Ans. Nor do we say so. Ordinarly he begins with prudential motives, from without he useth arguments drawn from out of Scripture; but the question is whether these motives are productive of Faith in him. And he seems to say as much as de [...]ses it, because he saies, in respect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture. So then, the way by the Church is imperfect, as the way of knowledge by those things which are more known quoad nos. But in the way of Faith, which makes the assent more firm and certain, we must begin with Scripture upon which the Church depends. To joyn issue then, We at first lead men to the Faith of Scripture by the way of the Church, as the Samaritans were led to Christ by the voice of the woman. But Faith doth not rest here; because they who deny the Scripture may deny the Church, and may question its credibility. Therefore since the Authority of the Church doth de se terminate its self in the Testimony of men, we would have our Faith by such a way as is proportionable to it, which if it be Faith divine, must rely upon some divine Authority. And this way the Scripture must be more known than the Church, because by the Scripture we know the Church, in a distinct knowledge. And without it can be no more than an Individuum vagum. Surely [Page 1031] it is Scripture which makes Individuum demonstrativum. And they are wont to prove it determinatum, as in Petrus, by the Scripture.
And as for the Criticism in the forenamed Text of Scripture to Timothy about the Church; all he saies is nothing against so much use of it as I made. For I do not argue so, because there are such Ebraisms, therefore this is to be so expounded; we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation: No; but thus it will follow, there are such Hebrew formes of prefacing; therefore this may be so interpreted. Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose: For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility, If this or that be infallible, it is not possible to be any other way, but the sense may be otherwise; therefore this is not the infallible sense. so we agree with Dr. Taylor, whom he quotes; because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse; we intend it sufficiently quoad posse. It may be otherwise expounded than they say; therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church. Suppose the Church were infallible; yet if we did not infallibly know so much, we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith. Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith, if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible.
And an exception against this interpretation is, that it is new, unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age, Ans. This exception would have come better from some other, since my adversary had no minde to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity. But whose saying was that, Omnes Patres sic, ego autem non sic? And yet neither is this a sufficient answer, unless the consent of[Page 1031] the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith. So then, as the Florentine said of vertue, that the shew of it is profitable, but the practice not; so also may it be said of the Italians, that the shew of antiquity is of use to them, but the thing not, but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative, neither were many of the Fathers Learned in the Hebrew tongue.
He goes on, whether this infallibility be equall to that of the Apostles, or not, maketh not to our purpose. Ans. Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctours. It is not receptive of magis, & minus, therefore if he asserts not an equall infallibility, he asserts none: less in infallibility is less then infallibility. So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon, equally to the Authority of the Apostles; therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority: which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted, that the Church was regula regulata. And this is as much, as the cause is worth
He saies, I note him in a Parenthesis, for a French Catholicke, for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council. Ans. No. He, or his scribe is much mistaken. I asked him, whether he had a minde to the opinion of the French Catholick, because he in one place spake of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope. Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility, then he is like to be a French Catholick: And, although all Romane Catholicks allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council, cumulative; yet all Roman Catholicks do not allow infallibility to the Pope, only then when he defines with a Council. As some Catholicks do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope: so some Catholicks allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council. And this is more then I needed to [Page 1033] have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me
Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within perill of blasphemy, His opinion was this, ‘God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council, as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture.’ My reason was this, for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture, since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word. He denies the inference. I maintain the charge more pressely thus. He that inferres no need of Scripture comes within perill of blasphemie. He that saies such words as before infers no need of Scripture, Therefore, To the major in effect he hath said nothing, his discourse is bent against the matter of the minor; and he would deny it by severall instances, which come not up to the case in hand. First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand yeares. And why more blasphemy now? To this in the matter of it we have spoken before. As applied here, we shall answer to it now. First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church, if the termes [by his Church] be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church: if it be understood thus, that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church; it may be more easily granted. In the former sense the reason were good if it were true, in the latter it may be supposed true, yet it is not sufficient to his use, who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God. Yea 2. it cannot be absolutly granted in the second sense, if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council: for much truth of what was proposed, came to some, of them by way of prophecy. 3. The termes [God speak infallibly by his Church] may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument, [Page 1034] God spake infallibly whatsoever he spake by them: but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said. Or thus, the words are true hypothetically, if God spake, he spake infallibly by them; for he cannot speak otherwise: but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God, is a question. Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is compleated, as when there was none? As to Gods speaking by Moses, we have spoken to it lastly. As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church; that was not ordinary; and therefore it fits not our case, neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiencie of the spirit of God, notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church. Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write; because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks: and now the building can stand upon that foundation, therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time. And yet if they, can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other then that which was 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 Me [...]as which also the Scripture teacheth, come up to the case. First, Because Iohn the Baptist was but [Page 1035] 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 o [...] 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 su [...]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 [Page 1036] of necessary matter; since the p [...]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 [Page 1037] 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 [Page 1038] 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 definitions of Councils to be prophetical. If they be concluded by discourse, then are they fallible: if their conclusions be prophetical, then by revelation.
But also these terms [to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed] are somewhat obscurely proposed. Doth he mean it of the sense of Scripture? Then where was it formerly revealed? if it was clearely revealed, what need of a Council to see that which others may see? if not, how was the sense revealed to them infallibly without a revelation? If he meanes [what was formerly revealed] of Traditions; those are beside the word of God: and therefore these do not belong to interpreting of Scripture. And yet also the Church hath not been so faithful in proposing these; as hath been noted before. Or doth he mean it of traditive interpretations, as they are called? but where are these to be found? who gives us their number formal and material?
Let them then take home to their own Tents those that claim full assurance by the spirit in any point. We differ from them much; first because we doe not pretend any such necessity of ful assurance in every point: but the Roman must; otherwise what need of an infallible living Judge? 2. We pretend not to any praerogative above other Churches as to the knowing [Page 1039] the sense of Scripture; they do. Therefore they urge that of St. Cyprian in allusion to what St. Paul said of the Church of the Romans then, for their Church now, that perfidiousness cannot have accesse to them; not considering (besides what hath been said to it before) what Nilus comments upon it, that the Apostle spoke it of the [...] not of the [...] of the time that was past, not of the future. And thirdly, we do use meanes towards the finding out the true sense: but they must have it by an extraordinary assistance of the Spirit (which needs not means) if they will have it by infallible assistance in places of controversie. Therefore Stapleton thinks rationally that conclusions from discourse, cannot be infallble; and therefore he will have them to be Prophetical: and that will be by revelation.
This number receives again my reinforcements of my answer to that Text forenamed about the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, as we ordinarily read it. I said it respects the office of the Church, according to the rule of the School-man. He saies again, No, it respects the Authority. And here he does [...] for he offers no reason why it should be taken in his way. For as to that which he urgeth here that it is called the ground of truth, it is not solidly objected; for the term in the Greek is [...]; that which is to keep firm and stable; the prop, the support, and this fairly imports an act ex officio, to keep up, and uphold the truth.
He saies also it suits well with his sense to give order to Timothy to carry himself well, that the Church might be thought to be infallible, so as not to make men believe it improbable that God should assist infallibly such a Church. Ans. The strength of this Argument himself destroies. He is afraid to make good life an Argument of infallibility; because he saies it is a pitiful [Page 1040] argument, since Solomon the Idolaters was assisted with infallibility. Well, But let them first take my sense with the rule of the School-men, and so compare them with his reason, which is but a pitiful argument; and then judge whether it be not best to take my account upon the place. Secondly, If badness of life be a prejudice to infallibility, then, since they cannot deny that some of their chief Pastours have been in life scandalous, their infallibility will be scandalized, and so cannot be such a way as that fools cannot erre, as he urged before? Thirdly, If this satisfies the multitude, that those who are to instruct them are of unblamable life: yet this though it be enough ad faciendum populum; yet this is not enough to judicious men, who look for satisfaction upon solid principles; nor can this make Faith unto the people of their infallibility, but a better opinion thereof. Fourthly, As for Bishops and Deacons, which he saies should be so qualified (by the order of St Paul, to and for the credit of such a Church) he does not there find in St. Pauls Epistle any Cardinal Bishop; or Cardinal Presbyter, or Cardinal Deacon, in whom the power of infallibility, according to them, should chieflly consist; and therefore that Text doth not positively serve their turn. Fiftly, I had thought infallibility could have defended it self without the credit of a good life; since the grace of gifts, and the gift of grace are two things.
I said moreover what need of such instructions which St. Paul gives to Timothy, if the Church were infallible, since infallible assistance is immediate. He answers here, this is a strange consequence; the Church is infallible in defending points in a general Council, Ergo, no man needeth instructions for his private good behaviour. Ans. But first, the instructions he gives to Timothy, were such as respected him in his place for the ordering of the Church in rebus fidei, in [Page 1041] matters of Faith, as appears by the summe of Christian Doctrine which he gave him, ‘Great is the mystery of godliness, &c. Secondly.’ By my Adversaries opinion there was no such need of instructions for a private life, since it is a pitiful argument to derogate from infallibility by a bad life. Thirdly, Neither was Timothy I hope in their account, a private man.
After this he hath two questions in the clouds. Was it so for the first two thousand yeares before the Scripture was written. Ans. This is imediately subjoyned to the other before; and therefore should seeme to be univocal to it. And then we say two things, first he supposeth that which is to be proved, that the Church, in that space, was absolutely infallible. 2. much less was it infallible in Councils, as he now pretends, which then were not, as he now would have them. Therefore from hence it should follow, that if the Church be infallible, it may be infallible without Councils; and this is against him. Another question is this. Or do we perhaps teach this infallible assistance to be communicated to every one immediately? Ans. He speakes gravely, as antient men were wont, with an [...] or [...], as he notes in his Rhetoriques. But why should he think we think he doe? For the Church, by him, might be thought to be infallible; though Timothy was not; because according to him, infallibility is in a representative. And though Timothy might have been President of a Council, yet was he not to be (according to my Adversary) personally infallible, but as Head of the Council. Yea he could not be Head of a Council then; for this was, according to my adversaries, reserved for St. Peter. And yet infallible assistance was communicated to every of the Apostles; was it not? Then nothing hinders but that it may be communicated to every of the Popes successively; which yet, it may be, he declines the affirmation of. And if it be not communicated to [Page 1042] every of the Preists how shall the people be secured from errour by them, so as they cannot erre?
But if they do say infallible assistance is communicated to any immediately, then may they see reason for what I said that infallible assistance is immediate: or if all infallible assistance be not imediate, let them shew another species of infallible assistance. To me this argument is good, Apostolical assistance was immediate, infallible assistance is Apostolical, therefore infallible assistance is immediate. No question is made of the proposition. Nor can they make any doubt of the assumption, because they urge as much assistance to the Church now as is Apostolical. Therefore had my Adversary reason to interpret me of such infallible assistance, which needs no instructions: for I know no infallible assistance that doth, as appeares by the argument.
Neither doth his following Instance of the Apostolical Council in the fifteenth of the Acts evince the contrary. Though their determinations were not immediately inspired in regard of time, or of debate: Yet since this debate was not to them necessary, how can this make a new species of infallible assistance? Likely therefore this Council was in this sort managed by them to be a precedent and example to other Councils, which should not have infallible assistance, to determin presently and prophetically as soon as the question is proposed. And if those who have infallible assistance do use discourse; this doth not conclude an infallible assistance, which is not immediate. He that can prove the creation of the world by principles of Scripture in way of Faith, or in order to Faith, may prove the same conclusion also by principles of reason in order to science.
But then it is said in the preface, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. Ans. To this I say, fine [Page 1043] praejudicio melioris sententiae, that these words do not cogently inferr an infallible assistance of proper name, actuated, for they may bear that account in respect to the discourse they made by the effects of the Holy Ghost, and former declarations. And this may appear by that of St. Paul, 1. Cor. 17. vlt. ‘she is happier if she so abide according to my judgment; and I think also that I have the spirit of God.’ This judgment was not given by infallible assistance, because by no inspiration: and yet also it doth refer to the spirit of God: ‘And according to this proportion might be said, it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; and yet those conclusions might not proceed from the Holy Ghost by way of infallible assistance.’ And so farr in other Councils the definitions may be said to be by the Holy Ghost, as they are drawn out of principles of Scripture, which the Holy Ghost did inspire the Pen-men of it in. Yea 2. Since the meeting of them in that Council was but upon convenience in case of Scandal, what such necessity was there for that infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost? So then let them take it how they will, either those determinations were not made by them who were infallible by an infallible assistance; and then is not this instance to their purpose: or if it was, then are they to prove equall assistance to all General Councils: otherwise extraordinaries make no species. And I am sure the Trent Council hath not credited such assistance, as Stapleton and Bellarmin would claim from the Apostolical Council to all General Councils.N. 27.
Here he would make up the breach which was made upon his strong hold for infallibility in Councils by that place of St. Athanasius, as holding the consubstantiality of the Son of God to be the word of God upon the Authority of the Council. This was slighted. He would repair it, but it will not stand. That Text, [Page 1044] upon which the Nicene Council builded their determination, is made good ch. 2. num 4. In the judgment of the Council it did more then probably determin the Controversie. And if he thinks otherwise, he doth not believe the Council; and therefore not their infallibility. His discourse is nothing: He cannot determin it Gods word with relation to a Text probable in Scripture, therefore he doth it with relation to the infallibility of the Councils authority. Well, is here all? then turne the tables, He cannot determin it Gods will with relation to the infallibility of the Councils Authority; therefor he did it with relation to the infallible Authority of Scripture, Doth he say that the Council holdes it upon account of their Authority, or of the Scripture? then which is it more likely it should be held upon? The Church, or the Scripture? But let them speake thus, when the question is granted.
Another answer of mine he doth as good as confess, that St. Athanasius did not hold it upon the Council; because he held it before. Here he distinguisheth indeed. He held it so in order to himself who was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the antient doctrin of the Church, yet in order to others &c. Ans. He was not Pope, was he? And yet St. Basil speaks so highly of him, as if he had spoken so of the Pope, we should have heard of it: but if he was not Pope, what have we to do to the holding it in order to others? He was quoted for his own judgment; was he not? Then this distinction is impertinent. And besides, if he was convinced that his interpretation was conformable to the antient doctrine of the Church, he was convinced that their doctrine was conformable to the true sense of Scripture; if not, why should he say that the Council urged Scripture to the Arrians? if he was, then he held it before upon that account.
Then again he toucheth upon the Council of Ariminum, [Page 1045] saying that I contend that Council as well to be believed for it self as the Council of Nice, and you think &c. Ans. what I spake by way of interrogation [why not] is not yet answered by him in the reason of it. He wonders that I should urge this Council in way of compare to the contrary: But this gives no satisfaction as to my reason, that exceptions, it seemes, were not so availeable against the Council, because St. Austin made no mention of them, but referred the point betwixt them to Scripture. This Council of Ariminum was not so esteemed as the rest: but what then? from whence did this disesteem proceed? from the illegality? it seems no; for then St. Austin had had a plea against it without waving the Authority of the Nicene Council. And surely St. Austin had a very mean esteem of the Authority even of the Nicene Council, if having a just exception against the Council of Ariminum he would not pleade it, and so bring in the Authority of the Nicene against the Arrians. But it may be the Arrians did not care for the Authority of a Council, and therefore St. Austin waved the Nicene Council. Yea? Then how is the Authority of a Council a Catholick remedy? and then it seemes the Nicene Fathers determined against them, not by their Authority, which they cared not for, but by the Scripture. So then the disteem of that Council of Ariminum was upon respect to the matter of the definitions. And so a Council was not in their opinion, ipso facto infallible. Therefore he procceds in a fallacy, if he argues thus, it was never by the Fathers, no nor by the Church of England numbred amongst the foure first Councils, therefore it was rejected, because it was not accounted a lawful Council. Because it was rejected, therefore for this cause, doth not follow: because the genus doth contein potentially more species. It was refused upon dislike of the matter, it seemes, as before. And as for the reason why it was [Page 1046] not lawful, he toucheth not here; and it was cashiered before.
He goes on, and you might as well thinke that I might prevaile against you by only citing the Council of Trent &c. Ans. surely the Council of Ariminum in all respects considerable was as hopeful towards infallibility as the Council of Trent; it may be more, by a a greater number of Bishops; and this with my adversary should have borne some weight; who should think that multitude of Counsellours is halfe an argument of truth; because he would not place infallibility in a singular person, as the Jesuit, but in a Council with the Pope. And if he saies that there was wanting in the Council of Ariminum the presence or consent of the Bishop of Rome; we can easily answer, that he then had but a single suffrage, and there were some hundreds of Bishops more in the Council of Ariminum then were at the Council of Trent. Yea also, some Decrees of the Council of Trent proceeded without the Pope's confirmation, as before. But I think they are both alike, the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Trent in being deceived. Only I think that St. Austin had less to say against the illegality of the Council of Ariminum, then we have to say against the Council of Trent: And therefore we may follow St. Austin; and if he appealed from the Council of Ariminum to Scripture, we may as well appeal from that of Trent, if they would urge it. He saies St. Austin in vaine had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it. Ans. Me thinkes, if I may say so, this is not very judiciously spoken; because, if Maximinus urged the Council of Ariminum, he was bound by equall law to be dealt with by the Nicene Council. If Maximinus had not urged the Council of Ariminum, it had seemed that the Arrian had not a perswasion that this Controversie should be otherwise handled then by [Page 1047] Scripture. And if he were well furnished with other arguments out of Scripture admitted by him, as he it seemes supposeth that he might be, what need then of the infallibility of the Church in Councils? And it seemes it is the shorter way and more expedite against Hereticks by Scripture, as he confesseth in the words following, that St. Austin intended by them only at that time to overthrow him and not to medle with a long contention (fit to fill a book alone) aboue the validity of the Council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum.
Put then these things together; St. Austin it seemes might be sufficiently furnished with arguments out of Scripture against the Arrian; he might by them only overthrow him; it is a voluminous work to prove the legality of one Council, and the illegality of another; the Arrian scoffed at the Council of Nice; therefore the convenient and easie way of proceeding with and against Hereticks is by Scripture, not by the Authority of the Church. And this interpretative is the yeilding of the cause. And yet, if they will yet think Councils, as such, to be infallible, let them think upon that Canon of Nice declaring equal [...] of the Bishop of Alexandria to Rome; and let them think of the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Constantinople, that the Bishop of Constantinople, should be equal in his limits to the Bishop of Rome; The Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Nestorius, that Peter and Iohn were of equal dignity. Let them therefore consider well what they have to do; for, if Councils be not infallible, they are in an errour: if Councils be infallible, they are not, because they have declared against them. Let them therefore stand on fall by Scripture. Let them try it so as St. Austin did.N. 29.
His discourse herein is fully put into this form, all errours in or against things necessary are plainely determined by Scripture, This infallibility of the Church [Page 1048] is not plainly determined against by Scripture, therefore. But therefore what? That this is no errour? Nay, that is not rightly concluded, but, that it is not an errour in things necessary. All errours are not in things necessary. Therefore if it concludes as it should, it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench; for it is enough to us that it be an errour, suppose it were not an errour in things necessary. If it concludes that therefore it is no errour, it concludes falsly. 2. Though the proposition be our doctrine, the assumption supposeth that which is not necessary to be granted by us, that this infallibility of the Church is an errour in things necessary▪ we do not deny it to be so: but we are not by any arguments constrained to say so. For though we should not hold it an errour in necessaries, yet is it necessary to reject it as an errour, knowing it to be so. And 3. We say to the assumption, that it is sufficiently enough determined against by Scripture namely as necessary to be in the Church, because in the Scripture sufficiency to salvation is asserted without it; as before. And 4. The affirmative should have been proved by them who assert it; not the negative to be proved by us. And as towards his proof of the assumption, that the Scripture is not so clear against this as for this, we have nothing to say, because he hath nothing to prove it; Scaurus nega [...]; it beggs. And we can say better we have proved the contrary.
N. 29.Here he resumes a Text for them, St. Matthew 28. vlt. I made answer to it before, that it doth not extend equall assistance to all ages of the Church. He now urgeth me to shew a Text, wherein the assistance which was infallible in the first age, should not be for the Second or Third age; he saies to me, against your reasons we have our reasons. Ans. He is here wanting in two offices, first in proving that that Text doth extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church; for [Page 1049] which the respondent is to waite with his buckler, it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it. But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons, let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot unty them. Let them bring forth their strong reasons, as the Prophet speakes. When as then he saies, bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting, we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense, or gives reason for it, or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church, we have nothing more to thinke (besides what hath been said) then that he had reason to say more, then what follows, the necessity of the people (which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity) was greater in ages remoter from Christ. But this was answered to by retortion, that then, Traditions, it seemes, now are not to be accounted equally certain. And he answers now that which he had better have kept in, He saies now, it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles, was crucified, did rise again, then it was presently after these thinges happened; yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then, and as infallible: so I say of traditions; which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty. Ans, Traditions then were but equall to Scripture, Traditions now are not equall to Traditions then. Therefore they are not now equall to Scripture. And this spoyles their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council, which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu. And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words. Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us; for so is the Scripture infallible in it self without the Church, as they confess, but it doth not so appear to us, they say. 2. They are to make good, if they can, degrees of [Page 1050] infallible assistance, by the least degree of infallibility.
But to goe on, what if there be no such necessity &c. Ans. He seemes to be, towards a punctum reflexionis here, well, if there be no such necessity of equall assistance, then my answer to such Texts is the better. And then let them take the rule, which their own do use, Deus non deficit in necessaris, nec abundat in superfluis. God doth not abound in things superfluous, nor is wanting in things necessary. But then also if it be not necessary, why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge? Indeed it might be, if God had pleased; and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent; but they are wont to prove it to be, because it is necessary.
He goes on, Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written &c. We answer as often before; The Church is not thence concluded infallible; put it into forme, that which decides all controversies is infallible; the Church, before Scripture was written, did decide all controversies; Therefore it is infallible? No. We first deny the proposition. That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly, does not follow. This cannot be proved; less will not serve them. Then 2. To the assumption, we can deny it, it did not decide all controversies, put case it did decide all necessary controversies, yet not all controversies. And we must have a judge, they say to decide all controversies whatsoever. And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever, then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church, because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions, yet they cannot decide all controversies. If they can, they are not faithfull, and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to [Page 1051] them now, that perfidia non potest habere accessum. If they cannot, where is the equall assistance? and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written: so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture.
Again he saies, did not the old Scripture testifie as much as was necessary that Iesus Christ was the true Messias? Yes. to what end then was Iohn Baptist sent to testifie this? Ans. First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testifie of the Messias, then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient: if it did not sufficiently testifie, then his argument is none. 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned, as for St. Iohns testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture: More might be requisit for the settling of the Primitive Church then after: because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive.
But he saies there is as good reason; In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed &c. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversie which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge. Let them prove this, and they will say somthing. If not, this will not be to the purpose, that several controversies in such a space might arise. And would not the same number of necessary points, material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians? And those controversies which he names, we have spoken to, nay when they have, as they suppose, an infallible Judge, are all controversies ended? Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before: We waite therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church. It is not enough for him to say, why might not [Page 1052] Christ (for any thing you know) thinke this a sufficient reason. A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion. 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent, and a reason to prove the thing to be: if they can soundly prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages, then we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgment of his reason. But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing. 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken allwaies simply according to the termes, what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture? Therefore let them chuse which they will do, whether they will allwaies have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter; if so, then the sense of Scripture is plain; which they have denied; if not, then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3. This forme of modality [why might not] should not, one would think, become the high mode of infallible assistance. 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 [Page 1053] 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, [Page 1054] 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 [Page 1055] 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 na [...]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 [Page 1056] then Hereticks. And I think we shall do very few Learned and sober men any harme, if we should say, that all those who have differed from us, are Hereticks. [...] but we know on which part the Fathers of the Church stood. We can carry our Fathers through the flames of divisions safe, I mean the antient Fathers of the Church. But 3. If they will do us right, upon occasion for it, we will distinguish, and so do them a favour; but only then they must be guilty here of a fallacy of consequent: for although Heresie be opposite to clear Scripture, yet all which is opposite to clear Scripture, by their leave, is not Heresie. This is a condition of Heresie: but this is not the essentiative of it. There may be and are plain points of Scripture which respect circumstances, and yet these are not matters sufficient to make difference in them to be Heresie. They account indeed all difference to be Heresie, because they respect not points in order to the matter, but to the proposal of the Church, which hath it self equall to all: but the tenure of our principles is yet good. And yet this we will grant them, that he who denies any thing, which he confesseth to be plain, he is an Arch-Heretick; but not in respect to it presently in the matter, which may be a circumstance; but in respect to it as confessed plain, because thus he should deny Gods veracity. And yet 4. the difference is not so much in opposition to clear Texts as in their obtruding matters of faith for which they have no Text.
He proceeds. But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church &c. Ans. Will he again snarl himself? First it lyes on the challengers part to make good two points, one that these points of difference were held in the Primitive times; and the second that they were held on their side. They say we have runne away from the antient Catholick Apostolick Roman faith; this is [Page 1057] work for them to prove. And until this be settled, we have nothing to say to that conclusion, that Christ was with the opposers of evident Scripture. And yet we can say also [...] that it is false in the proposition; and false in the conclusion; as applied to us. And yet somewhat else may be said of it by and by. Thus we answer them if they intend the words of the primitive times: if they intend them only of the last ages preceding the reformation, we say first, that we may be somewhat more bold because their Church in those times was more degenerated. But 2. We need not deny that Christ was with his ordinances even in those times, as to lawfulness of baptism; and to the possibility of some's being converted; who might privately abhorr the grosser errours, or simply might swallow them as the Whale did Ionah undigested. Delictum ambulat cum Capite; they followed Absalom in the simplicity of their heart. Therefore 3. as to the opposers of evident Scripture, that either Christ must be with such, according to our suppositions, or else with none for these last ages; we can easily distinguish. To be with them, so, as to give them infallible assistance; or to be with them so, as not to withdraw all administrations of his ordinances, the former sense we can presently deny Christs being with them in; for we deny it to all times after the Apostles: in the latter sense we can grant it; and yet they can get nothing by it. Yea we can also deny them this; and can answer to the other part of the disjunction, that if not with them then with none for those times: this we can answer to, and say that his disjunctive is not yet immediate because many or at least some might be led to heaven by the Cloud, as well as in the time of Elijah: and as they will say, in the time of Anti-Christ.N. 30.
This makes number; being little else then a syllabus of former Texts. He thinks in them to prove two things, first that the spirit will be with the sucessours of the [Page 1058] Apostles for ever. And 2. Secure them from errour, because it is said, he will guide you into all truth. Ans. As for the first we need not stand upon that; for the question is not simply upon Christs continuance with the successours; because we deny it not in termes. But the question is upon the universality of the object [all truth] namely whether it be to be taken reduplicatively to truth; or specificatively to necessary truth. The latter we can grant to the Church as invisible, and to the universal visible. The former we still deny. For first, it respects the Apostles principally, as appeares by the twelth ver. ‘I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.’ This must be spoken unto the Apostles personally; and not as they were personae supponentes. But this he takes no notice of. And then again, the opposing of [for ever] by the spirit to a little while of being with them in body, must referr (as it is noted) to the Apostles, because he was not any time with the successours, in body. Yea also, this will be true in the time of Anti-Christ, will it not? if not, then the promise is not made good; and so Christ should not be as good as his word. If so, then it is extendible in the promise to the Church invisible, when the profession is not so visible. Then why do they arogate it to the Church visible? Again, this equally respects all the successours of the Apostles▪ doth it not? If it does not; then they should satisfie themselves with a limitation where none is expressed, which lately they would not doe: If it does, then all Bishops are equall, because they all succeeded the Apostles as St. Ierom affirmes in his epistle to Evagrius. 4. All truth must be restrained in regard of the kind; for it must be Theological. Yea also in regard of the specialty; it must be necessary truth, for otherwise how was this promise made good for the first three hundred yeares, wherein there was no Generall Council by their [Page 1059] own confession? Put it then into forme, all infallibillity is in a Council. In that space there was no Council; then in that space there was not all infallibility; therefore at most only in points necessary. They cannot deny the major; because they annex infallibility, since the Apostles, to a Council. The minor they confess. So then, the promise of Christ, which was made equally to the Apostles and successours; yes, taking it rightly, equally to all the Apostles amongst themselves; and to all the successours amongst themselves (not equally to the Apostles and to their successours comparatively to both) is yet made good according to its own tenour, in its own sense, with their consequences. Therefore their Romish Divines do carry it more soberly; for so they say upon the place; and therefore the Church cannot fall into Apostasie or Heresie, or to nothing, as the adversaries say, they do not say, it cannot fall into any errour: Into Apostasie, or Heresie, or nothing, it cannot fall: but into errour, it may fall. To be sure, this is the surest way unles they had beter arguments against every errour whatsoever; or better answers for the arguments against them.
Nevertheless, we must attend his Syllogism, all this time all the visible guides or Praelats of the Church were lead and did leade into opinions contrary to the texts of your Church, but all this time the spirit of truth did abide with them, guiding them into all truth, therefore the opinions contrary to your Church were true and not errours. Well not to trouble them as to strictnes of forme. To the proposition we can say, that if they intend it of all the times from the Apostles we utterly deny it; if they mean it of the times after the first six hundred yeares of the Church, then we grant the proposition, but utterly deny the assumption, they were not guided by the spirit into such a Latin Edition, into halfe communion. And this denies his proof that those opinions [Page 1060] were true, because they were led into them by the Holy Spirit. This is denied; and is the question. And it is more easily said, that the Holy Spirit was with us by common assistance unto our opinions, then with them by infallible assistance unto their opinions. If we are to Judge of their assistance by the effects; we had need of infallible assistance, if it were convenient, for the discourse, to conclude for them: but I am sure we have no need of infallible assistance, to conclude against them.
Neither is it any boot to them that the Spirit leads all into truth; for this may be limited to saving truth. And this is not sufficient for them, who must have absolute infallibility, or none. And then [all] may be limited, as that proposition, [God will have all men to be saved] is limited by Aquinas out of St. Austin by the like; such a School-Master teacheth all in the Town; whereof the sense is this; not that he teacheth every own simply but all that are taught are taught by him. So the Spirit all leads that are led; but all simply are not led. The limitation then in regard of the object of the Person, or in regard of the object of the thing cuts off all their provision from hence. And when we have sufficiently refuted their points of difference, we have no need to say any thing, that the Holy Spirit should teach contradictions, if he were with them and us too; for first, infallible assistance is asserted to neither, but denied: and common assistance doth not exclude all errour; and then 2. The Holy Spirit was not with them infallibly by the effect; for since the same Spirit doth not teach contradictions, he did not infallibly teach them that which is oposite to Scripture which he did teach.
That which followes in compare of the visibility of their Teachers with ours or any other Churches, is but a meer flourish. Shew me a succession in all ages of the [Page 1061] Guides and lawfull Pastours of any Church holding your Tenets in points differing from ours. Ans. Succession de se, is like number, of no value. Therefore they must prove their doctrine to be right; otherwise it will be a succession of errour: for as he said, Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris. 2. It is accidentall to a true particular Church to have succession: and the Church at first was true antecedently to the succession; and so the former times must never have been certain of their being right, because a Persecution might afterwards have interrupted their succession. 3. The Heretickes bragged of their sucession too: therefore this is no proper, special, distinctive argument: 4. Where is their succession of universal Bishops for the first six hundred yeares? Then where is their Church? Then either let them not give or take that argument. 5. Our opinions to them are negative: then they are to shew a positive succession in the doctrin of those points, which they can never do; unless by their infallibility post-nate antiquity should be as good as Primitive. For as for the Fathers of the purest times, tam sunt omnes nostri quam D. Augustinus: I am sure we may better say so, then Campian. 6. We can shew our doctrine by Scripture, let them shew theirs without it. And whatsoever is according to Scripture is true; this they deny not: our doctrine is yet made good to be according to Scripture: therefore the Charter of our points we have the Records of in Scripture: and this way is good enough for us, which is a posteriori. And yet also we can tell them that if it had not been for their cruelty and domination, we might better have returned them that which St. Austin said to the Donatists, vos tam pauci, tam novi, tam turbulenti. And God hath left us in all ages, of greeks, and others who have given us occasion to say, we hold nothing in the points of difference, but was held before. Therefore this argument doth not succeed: so that [Page 1026] they must still labour to find a reason why our doctrine should not be as good as theirs.
N. 31.The sense of this Section we have had before. And it falls into such a Syllogism, whatsoever was Gods end in giving of Pastours is allwaies compassed. That the Church should be without errour, and should not be as Chidren wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine, was Gods end Ephes. 4.12. Ans. Whatsoever was Gods end is allwaies compassed so farr as it was his end, where the effect depends not also upon morall causes; take it so and we grant the major, and deny the minor; it was not Gods end that the Church should be without all errour whatsoever; and the effect doth depend upon moral causes; which may hinder the success. The end of the Sacraments in the time of the Gospel, they will say was to conferr grace ex opere operato; yet they say they have not that effect Ponentibus obicem. Or thus, whatsoever is Gods end in his will of purpose that shall surely be compassed: but what is his end in the will of sign is not allwaies compassed; take it then in the latter sense, so I deny the major, take it in the former sense, so I deny his minor. For this would be more unreasonable by their doctrine; for if God should work omnipotently to secure men from errour by meanes, how should the obedience of faith be brought under freedome of will? 2. This respects also particular Churches: and therefore will not serve their turne, who, though they make but a particular Church, yet are wont to challenge the privileges of the universal. 3. This Text speakes nothing of the power of Iurisdiction, but of the power of order, now the duty of our obedience beats respect formally to Authority and Iurisdiction, or do they like some of Geneva, divide Pastours and Teachers? And then do they think that the ordinary Pastour is here principally aimed at in their extraordinary sense? 4. The [Page 1063] end of Pastours then was the end of Pastours now; to be preserved by infallibility of Pastours then was not the end of Pastours then: therefore not now. The major is true by them, because they apply those words to these times of the Church, the minor is also true by them, because there was not, by their own confession, Councils held for the first three hundred yeares. The assistance therefore is not such as preserves from all errour. And lastly, if we were to be preserved from errour by the unanimous doctrine of those Doctours and Pastours, we should never be secured from errour, unless in those points wherein we agree.N. 32.
In this number he brings Es. 59.20.1. Compared with the 11. ch. to the Rom. 26. ver. Ans. These Texts neither disjunctively nor conjunctively are sufficient for his intendment. That of Esay is plainly intended for the last conversion of the Jew, which is not like to be made by Roman meanes, as Sr. Edwin Sandys notes in his Survey of the westerne Churches.
And as for those wordes, my words which I have put into thy mouth, are free from errour in all points great and small, yes, we grant it. This doth not contradict us, but they are to prove that whatsoever they say God puts into their mouth. Again it respects the Church as invisible; and that conceit of his that it cannot be so taken, because it speaks of the words not departing out of the mouth, is not solid; for the use of the mouth may be there for confession of the faith, as Rom. 10.10. with the mouth confession is made to God. Now this respects not the visible Church, as teaching; but the invisible as expressing the faith of the heart by the confession of the mouth.
But he again, Gods spirit or word is not in a mou [...]h teaching errour. Ans. This is a Sophism, it is true in sensu composito, and as teaching errour: but it is not true in sensu diviso, Gods spirit may be in one, at one time [Page 1064] teaching truth & in another time not teaching or teaching not truth. He may be in some directing sufficiently to salvation, not sufficiently against all errour, not that the Spirit of God is in any teaching errour, operatively; for whatsoever it is he is operative to in point of beliefe, is truth, but in whom he may be sometimes as teaching truth, he is sometimes not, when they teach errour. For this si yet to be proved by them, that whatsoever is taught in the Church, is suggested and dictated by the Spirit.
Afterwards he taxeth me for taxing any of coming near to blasphemy for saying, God did speak to us and teach us by his Church; which he saies here is refuted "my words shall not depart out of thy mouth. Ans. I said not so. That which I said, I have answered upon the place, I do not not deny absolutly that God speakes by his Church; but I deny that he speaks now by his Church absolutely, God may speak by his Church that which is infallible: and yet not speak by his Church now infallibly. That which is infallible in the principles of Scripture; not infallibly in the manner of deduction. If he did speak allwaies, and allwaies infallibly, there were no more to be said; until that be proved, we say much is supposed.
N. 33.If it were lawfull, I might smile at his discourse, in this number out of the next ch. in Esay, and the next to that. For these chapters do plainly regard the Church as invisible, in order to salvation, which is properly applied to the Church, as such: and this is more then truth: for it is possible for a man, not to have any errrour, and yet not to come to Salvation, and it is I hope, possible for a man to come to Salvation, and yet to have some errours. But that this should be said of the Roman Church, and that that should teach all Nations, I say [...] Was not the Church of Ierusalem; and the Church of Antioch before them? Nay it will not be easily proved by them that they [Page 1065] were Christians, in a formed Church, before us. We may as well say that ‘the multitude of the Isles shall be glad thereof;’ and that all Nations and Kingdomes which shall not serve thee shall perish, should be meant of the Church of Rome is as likely as that the Bishop of Rome should be Emperour of the world, as they pretend him Monarch of the Church. It was never true surely but then when the Emperours held the Popes stirrup, and the Duke was throwen under the Table. Or it was then true, when the Pope was the Sun, and Emperour the Moon. Or it shall then be true when the Sun riseth in the west. But it should not be true of Rome, me thinks, because it is said, ‘the dayes of thy mourning shall be ended.’ And surely they have been, since the prophecy, sometimes in mourning: and at least shall be, by their own acknowledgment, in the time of Anti-Christ.
And that this should be meant of the Church as visible, because it is said "thou shalt be called Sought out, is a slight ratiocination. Rather the contrary, because God seeks it out, therefore it is not visible. Because it is called Hephtziba (my delight is in her) therefore visible: Yea rather the contrary; for Gods delight is with the Church invisible; because when his delight is with the Church visible, it is in order to the Church invisible. Because the land shall be called Beulah, Ch. 62 ver. 4 therefore it should be the Church visible; rather the contrary; for the real union, which is mystical, of Christ with his Church, is to be understood of the Church invisible. And that she should be to Gods comfort, namely the visible and the Roman Church; rather the contrary; she is certainly less to his comfort, because she saies so. These promises are made primarily to the Church as invisible, which should be gathered cheifely out of the Gentiles in general, therefore let them again remember that of St. Ierom in his Epistle to Evagrius, Orbis maior est Urbe.
But he helpeth us with an argument, If this Church should at any time fall to teach errour, Nations should do well to further their Salvation by forsaking her erring, as the Protestants say they did. This we take for the maior: and we, assume, but this Church hath erred, as hath been sufficiently shewed in the discourse of others, and competently in this; therefore are we justified by my adversaries. And amongst the errours, quod loquitur inde est, that she cannot erre.
N. 34.In this he obtrudes again that of Dan. 2.44. And they must be meant he thinks of the Church, of the Church visible, of the visible Roman Church certaintly it was well said by the Poet— [...] which we may go near to English thus, modesty is unprofitable to him that beggs the question. That it is meant of the Kingdome of Christ in his Church, we deny not: but that it is meant of the visible Roman, we flatly deny; and we use for proof, his own principle; that Kingdome which shall beat in pieces and consume all those Idolatrous Kingdomes and shall stand for ever, is the Kingdome meant there. So then. But the Roman Church is not that Kingdome which shall do so: therefore that is not it which is meant there. The minor is proved. First they are not agreed amongst themselves whether the Church be a Kingdome. And if they hold it so they hold it erroneously, or else the antient Church erred; for they looked for a Church in the Common-wealth, not for a Common-wealth in the Church, as he said; and then sure it did not stand for ever in the quality of a Kingdom. 2. If they take it in the letter, then it hath temporal dominion directly; which I think they will not say, since every one of them, as before, is not perswaded to hold a temporal dominion indirectly, and in ordine ad Spiritualia. If they do not take it in the letter, then it is meant of the mystical Kingdome: and this properly respects the Church [Page 1067] invisible. 3. Have they broken down all Idolatrous Kingdomes? have they broken down the Turke and Persian? Yea, if they be a kingdome, there is one Idolatrous Kingdome more, which is not broken down, and that is theirs. Therefore are they bound by this argument to break down all their Idolls. But they hate Idols, as Cyril of [...]salem said Anti-Christ should do, [...]. Anti-Christ will hate Idols, that he may fit in the Temple of God: so they break down all other Idolatrous Kingdomes, th [...]t theirs may stand alone. And 5. Upon this account, we should have had better measure from them, because I do not read that they have charged us with Idolatry. And yet they have endeavored to break us down as much or more then any others.
Again, it is meant of such a Church as hath not falne into Heresie; Yea? then we assume, the Church of Rome hath falne into Heresie by Liberius, by Vigiliu [...], as before. Therefore the Roman Church is not it which it is meant of. Again that Church which denies the Catholick Church, as such, is heretical. Their Church denies the Catholick Church, as such: for they restrain the Catholick Church to the Roman, by annexing the Roman to the Catholick. The proposition is good, because, to deny the Catholick Church as such, is to deny an Article of the Apostles Creed. Therefore to check their usurpation, the African Council cut off appeals to Rome: thus then it is not Daniels Kingdome, but a tyranny, which is [...], as the Politicks say.
Again If the Church should have universally fallen into uncertainty of true belief, it should no longer have been the standing kingdome of Christ, which shall stand for ever. We assume, but their Church must fall into uncertainties of true belief, as we have shewed; therefore their Church [Page 1068] is not it, and because there is uncertainty, therefore they have no divine faith, as he concludes. Again, their Church is not spread over the world in the quality of a Kingdome, therefore their Church is not that kingdome. How many parts of the world are there, wherein they cannot exercise a visible jurisdiction? nor do they break all Idolatrous kingdomes [...] their visible Preachers. What? they break? rather by the sword than by the word; by the mouth of the sword, not by the sword of the spirit. Their breaking is indeed the right reading of the second Psalm thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, which Bellarmin would construe to be feeding in the original, mistaking the root, or deceiving his Reader.
Yet if the Roman Church be not this Church, find me out a visible Church. Ans. First suppose we could not, yet this were no argument for infallibility, it might make somewhat towards probability; if the supposition were first proved, that there must be such a Church alwaies in a flourishing visibility. Secondly, we take it yet for the Church as invisible, and therefore his demand is unreasonable. Thirdly their Church had not, in doctrine and discipline, that visibility in the first ages of the Church, and therefore there was a Church, which had the priviledges of the Church visible, and yet not theirs, but he tells us we shall have more of this in its place. So then this is but a prelusory weapon.
N. 35.Here again he comes upon me for clear texts to prove the controversie about the infallibility of the Church, to be decided by Scripture. Ans. This hath been abundantly spoken to before. In respect to what he saies now, that I must bring clearer Texts of Scripture to prove the fallibility of the Church, then he to prove the infallibility, we add, that if he understands by [clearer Texts] as by reasonable consequence and deduction, it is done: if he understands them expressely [...], and [Page 1069] in termes, he speaks unreasonably; because he hath brought none such; and therefore he cannot look for clearer; because comparation is in eodem genere. So that this is not much more then a cavil. For if the Scripture be sufficiently furnished with necessary direction, why should it be thought defective in not determining in termes that controversie, which is ne [...]dless, i [...] that be otherwise sufficient
And as for the Item he gives me, that the Texts I bring, must be for the Church not for the Synagogue; for he saies all his Texts speak of that, not of the Synagogue, I am very well contented with this law. All that I have produced looks that way: but his have not. For besides those Texts which he produced out of the Old Testament, which in the letter, beare respect to the Jew, he urgeth that Text of Christ, dic Ecclesiae which by the termes hath more respect to the Synagogue, then any which I formerly made use of.
And you must bring Texts and not discourses, or else you decide not the Controversie by the sentence of the Iudge to which only you appeale. Ans. This compliance with the Anabaptist requites their Freindship. Is not that Scripture which is plainely deduced out of Scripture? As the conclusion is potentially contained in the principles; so that which is in principles of Scripture is contained in Scripture. So our Saviours, "you erre not knowing the Scriptures & then proves the resurrection by that which is said ‘[I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob] so then Christ proved the resurrection not by the Text, in the termes affirming it, but by the Text consequently as deducing it.’ 2. they do not consider how little they have in Scripture [...] for St. Peters successour; for halfe communion, merit of works, the Sacrifice of the Masse; and some others [...] where are they read in Scripture? 3. They would have [Page 1070] Religion with reason and prudential motives, would they not? Then they cannot dis-accept discourses from Scripture: 4. I do not deny to be judged by reasoning out of Scripture: no nor by antiquity neither, though it be not an argument [...] but they have more need to bragg of them, because they are not theirs. 5. I do not appeal to Scripture as a formal Judge, but as to the law by which all Judgment is to be made. And again, as the Philosopher, those the best lawes which leave least to the Judge. All things then considered, he hath reason to quit the field unless he hath a minde to encamp against the truth. And if they have so much for them in Scripture, and in [...]sert words as here he cracks; surely those Romanists who have spoken of Scripture so diminutively have not been so wise as they might have been. So then this Paragraph we may end with this account; the Socinian is supposed to plead reason against Scripture and the Church; The Papist pleads the Church without reason or the Scripture; The Protestant pleads Scripture with reason and the Church Catholick.
N. 36.This concerns the reading of a place in St. Austin De utilitate credendi, which he quoted about the authority of the Church, thus, velut gradu certo innitentes; I found it in a Froben Edition otherwise, namely thus, velut gradu incerto nitentes: He saies it is in an antienter Froben, as he reads it. And besides, he thinks the scope might lead me to his reading. Ans. The scope directs us to think the authority of the Church to be but as moving, not as determining Faith, as I have shewed upon another place of St. Austin, which he replies nothing to. Moved we are by that authority as an uncertain step to God by whom we are assured, not to God as the object of worship, but to God as the author of our faith. And as for his objection, that it is ridiculous to be helped to certain truth by authority [Page 1071] uncertain, it is not of much weight. For although uncertainty formal is not helpful unto truth, yet that which is uncertain for us to rely upon may be helpfull. As the Catholick Moderator observes of the Huguenot in point of justification, that he is somewhat nice because he will not lay hold upon such a bough which peradventure might save him, yet is he not to be blamed, because he doth rely upon the righteousnes of Christ, which is a certain bough, and will surely save him: so it may be we are thought too scrupulous, because we will not leane and rest our faith upon the authority of the Church; yet are we not to be blamed, because we rest it upon God. Yet may we then rely upon a bough uncertain till we come to a ground more certain. The voice of the woman of Samaria was not certain: yet the people were moved to come to Christ by what she said; but afterwards they found better satisfaction from himself; and then gave an account of their faith, not by her voice but because they had seen him.
And as for miracles which were spoken of to be part of St. Austin's authority, he thinks they were no unassured step; it is easily answered, that however this doth derogate from the application of that Text to the authority onely of the Church, since the authority he speaks of is not onely of the Church. But Secondly, miracles when they are received, are an argument to confirm the truth: but miracles are not to us an assured step, because we are not certain of them to be true: Since we hear in Scripture of lying wonders, 2 Thes. 2.9, 10. So that the doctrine rather proves the miracle than the miracle the doctrine. The doctrine is to be believed without a miracle, but the miracle is not to be believed when the doctrine is false, as Deut. 13. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
But then as to the reading of that place in St. Austin, somewhat more may be said. It is true that in an edition of Ba sil 529. it is Certo, but yet there is some [Page 1072] marke with it to note a Criticism in a various lection. In two other editions it is gradu incerto. But also we except against the Latin in the grammer of it, if it be read his way; for where will they finde the verbe [innitor] to govern an ablative? Nitor doth; but innitor doth not. And in reading Stapleton's relections I finde he useth [innitor] with a Dative. Therefore may it be probable that our reading is the right: and that the [in] changed its place; and in stead of gradu incerto nitent [...], it was made gradu certo innitentes.
N. 37.In this he resumes the speech upon the authority of the Devil when he saies any thing conformable to Scripture. To this I said more then was necessary. Another would have sent it back to the place from whence it came. But that which I said liberally he exagitates disingenuously.
I answered first that we are forbidden to consult with the Devil; but are injoyned to consult with the Church. To this he rejoyns, this hinders not his being conformable as long as he speaketh conformably to Scripture. Repl. This was proposed by him to presse us to the use of the Church, therefore that which was said by me properly made a difference betwixt them, because we are to take direction from one not from the other, even for those things which we know he knowes most certainly. Therefore though there be no difference in the matter of truth as to both: yet there is as to the immediate Authour.
And I granted to them ever that the Church to be consulted with ever, is the Church as visible. Yet doth it not from hence follow, I hope, that it should be allwaies so visible, as that we can consult with it. The visible Church is ever to be consulted with: but this visible Church is not ever so visible; visible at sometimes; not so visible at all times. For there was not allwaies in the Church a Pope and Council; and if a Pope, not a Council, by their own confession. And in [Page 1073] such cases, they have said before that the Church must content it self with former determinations. And though that which is infallible may be orderly consulted with; yet not all that is to be consulted with is not surely infallible. Every Priest is not infallible I think they will say; and yet is to be consulted.
My Second answer is of the same kind and that, which he saies would be of some weight, if we granted not such use to be made of the Church, as thereby to think well of that which is proposed, but the certainty of faith is, cui non potest subesse falsum this is not to be given to the Church simply.
As for the Third answer, we say easily, there is no comparative in negatives: neither is the one nor the other infallible; though I am more moved by the one whom we have reason to respect, the Church, than the other, whom we have reason to suspect.
So then, that which is apprehended true is considerable either abstractly from the speaker, or complexely with the speaker; in the former it is considered with respect to the matter; and so he said well, [...], we are not to look at so much the author as the matter, in the latter respect it is respective to the motive; and so I am more induced by the Church, though not determined. And therfore as to those termes, to whose saying you would give an infallible assent, when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture, we say that the term [...] [saying] is distinguishable into the object purely, or into the object with the act and authour. In the former there is no difference: in the latter there is, we may believe that which is said, when we do not believe him that saies it. And so may we believe rather the Church, whose office it is to propose truth, as he confesseth it is not the Divells.
Neither did we by these answers smother up any thing which clearly overthroweth our replie, who say we must follow the Church onely so far as we see her follow Scripture. [Page 1074] That which he saith here doth no way weaken our replie. It hath been answered before; and the strength of it broken. For first though they could not see at all how far the Church followed the Scripture for the first two thousand years, and the barbarous Nations never having seen the Scripture did truely believe, doth this hinder us from holding now that we are to believe the Church, in points of faith, no further then we see grounds for what they said, out of Scripture? take it of faith divine and in things of faith, it is yet good. And their instances do not evacuate it. Distingue tempora, distinguish the times, God might in that time and season of immediate revelation work then a faith immediately; which now is not reasonable to expect ordinarily, as appears by the first Chap. of the Ep. to the Hebrews the first ver. Privilegia pauc [...]rum non faciunt regulam communem. Secondly the Faith of the barbarous nations was not terminated in the Church, as if they had believed the Church, and therefore believed that which was said by them: But was terminated in the matter which was said by the Church: The Church was instrumental to the knowledge of the matter, and might be instrumental as to dispose them for faith: But the authority of the Church was not the formal cause of the act of faith. And Knotts himself is loath to assert it. And this is that which Tertullian hath said, non ex persona fides, sed ex fide persona aestimanda est. We are not to esteem the doctrine by the person, but the person by the doctrine. And the tradition which St. Irenaeus speaks of, was the sum of the Christian Faith, which is in Scripture: So he as before, and so St. Cyril of Hierusalem vnderstands it, as may appear by that of Cyril in his fourth Catech. [...]. we must not deliver any thing in the divine and holy mysteries of faith without the divine Scriptures.
This is the Epilogue of the Chap. and is of use onely to tell me what he hath done (I think not done) before,N. 38. and this is all the answer he gives me for taking away what he had said out of two places of Scripture forementioned, towards infallibility. Before he referred me for satisfaction to the due place; here he referrs me back again.
And as for any reply to my answer out of the Fathers, or my use of them, he saies to me, you know why I resolve to pass them. Yes, & particularly why he saies nothing more to what I said about St. Austins testimony in his Epistle against the Manichee. If I may be interpreter, it is thus resolved, he had good reason to pass them, because they pass him. And so we have made an end of his long, but not hard Chapter.
CHAP. V. No Church is our Iudge infallible, then not the Roman.
This Chapter which concerns the Hypothesis should injustice have been longer, but he reduceth the proof of it to a small pittance, and if all the Churches which submit not themselves to the Bishop of Rome as their supreme Pastour, be of no better proportion, it will be Catholick for all that do submit, but not for all.
But since he is so short in this, we will be even with him; and bring all he saies in this second Treatise (for so some times he calles it) into one Syllogism; the Church is the Judge infallible appointed in businesses of Religion. No other but the Roman is this Church; therefore. To the proposition we have said enough before. He would now make good the assumption (or praesumption, as we might speak) supposing the proposition to be demonstrated; [...] and therefore he quarrels with me, because we except against his supsition of it. It is true had the major been a maxim irrefragable, then there had been more reason to blame us for exception against it, and for not applying our selves in present address to the minor; but since we see no cause, nor the Churches of God, why the proposition [Page 1077] should be swallowed, we call upon him to make good the thesis, that there is a Church appointed as infallible Judge in businesses of Religion, and therefore we told him that he might as well prove he had right to Utopia, because he only claimes it; whereas he should first prove the An sit? whether there be such a place. And therefore if he would have had us say nothing to the questioning of the supposition, he should have made it stronger first, and then should not have concluded bravingly that therefore all he had said of the Church, was to be applied to the Roman, no other being infallible, as in the former treatise, num. 28,
Well, but he must prove his minor,N. 2. because all other Churches do not lay claime to this infallibility; and are demonstrated to be fallible; we grant the Antecedent, without any proof, and his proof was not so good as his proposition. But therefore, it belongs to them to be infallible; we deny the consequence. We deny the Title upon the claime. And he is angry, because we make his plea from the claim to be weak. And the weaknes of it appeares in that it is weaker grounded upon a true supposition, nor is it very sound in the proceeding of the consequence, in the first regard, we say debile fundamentum fallit opus. And therefore since that is one of his principles, his conclusion must be naught, as before. His consequence he proveth thus, the Protestant Chucrh and all other Churches different from the Roman do Iudge themselves, acknowledge themselves, declare and profess themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture. If then any of these Churches be infallible (in what they Iudge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture) they are infallible in this their Iudging and declaring themselves to be fallible; therefore infallibly they are fallible. Therefore upon supposition that it hath been formerly proved, that some Church is Iudge of controversies, and infallible, and it being by the former argument demonstratively [Page 1078] proved that neither the Protestant Church nor any Church different from the Roman can be Iudge of controversies and infallible; it evidently followeth that the Roman Church is this Iudge and infallible, as she teacheth her self to be. This is the whole procedure of his discourse. Herein he hath a supposition that there is some Church which is Iudge of controversies and infallible, this is not yet, nor can ever be proved. And here is also another supposition that no Church different from the Roman, hath claimed this priviledge upon declaring her self infallible: But this may be demurred upon; for in effect and by way of interpretation, this was done by the Donatists, who like the Roman separated themselves from their Brethren and taught no salvation but in parte Donati. And therefore his discourse is more weak while we question his suppositions: but yet supposing his suppositions to be good; first, this makes them not to be infallible by way of consequent, if by way of consequence. For that none other Church doth claim this infallibility is extrinsical and accidental to the Roman right; and it doth little victory, relate to possession rather then right. And if truth of right, should right of truth be given primo occupanti? Veritas est virgo semper, as he said; non dum occupatur. And therefore the necessity of consequence is left to shift for it self, since all that can be said for it, comes to pass, in the matter, upon this accidental negative: for if any Church of the world had been as bold as the Roman in claiming this infallibility, they had had it before them: but because there hath not been claim laied to it by other Churches, that which they have found and taken up, must belong to them.
Therefore, what he saies that I make him argue thus, the Roman Church claimeth infallibility, therefore by claiming it she hath right to it, is no great slander, though the termes might not be the same: for he doth little else in his former treatise, when he saies, All [Page 1079] other Churches of all other Religions do say indeed that they are themselves, the only true Churches, but none of them say themselves to be either the Iudges of controversies or to be infallible; therefore they cannot be either Iudges or infallible. And what sense is this argument resolved into, but this; that the claiming makes the right, and therefore he might somewhat have spared a reproach which falls upon him. Neither is it true, that all other Churches of all other Religions do say indeed that they are the only true Churches. And this I noted before; for which nothing is said to me now.
But he saies, I say nothing to that which he presseth and still doth press, that the Church which is appointed by God for infallible Iudge of controversies, cannot possibly be any of those Churches, which teach themselves not to be this infallible Iudge. No? Have I said nothing to it? Yes, I have said as much, as he could prove, that none of those Churches are such a Church. And I have also said that his supposition was to be denied; and to this supposition of his my proposition is contradictory; no Church is appointed by God to be infallible Judge. But, because he hath been a valiant supposer, I must be accounted a weak disputant. If he includes the supposition in the argument for one of the propositions, I deny that proposition. And if he will yet conclude, he makes it a formal Enthymem, but in vertue none. And therefore I said to him in termes, ‘first then make it out that there is such an infallibility to be had, before you challenge it, and do not prove the being of it by the challenging of it, lest the Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies.’
Yet he goes on, It had been very easie to understand this right, and not to make me say that onely laying claim to infallibility is a sufficient proof of infallibility. Ans. I think that I have understood more then my adversaries have been contented with. And I say yet it is easie to understand [Page 1080] here an argument by a claim. And so they must do, if they will conclude their Church to be the infallible judge. It is the best plea they have upon the supposition; and the only plea without it. And I have the less to do, because he denies this argument to be a sufficient proof, if not that, & the rest may answer themselves. And I say as he saies in this that though a Minister must be a man, yet it followeth not that such an one should be a Minister because be is a man and not a woman (unless Pope Ioane) because one is more general, and therefore the proposition is not simply converted; yet if he saies against us, the Church which is infallible judge must be a Church judging and teaching her self to be infallible, and cannot be a Church which judgeth and teacheth her self fallible, and if he makes this an argument, then he makes it an argument for himself, that their Church is the infallible judge, because it teacheth her self to be so. And yet he saies, this I said not, but I said that Church that must be infallible must not want this condition; and therefore no Church teaching her self (even according to Scripture) to be fallible, can truly be this infallible judge. Ans. This evasion will do them no good. A condition hath it self by way of an inseperable accident: but this inseperable accident, when it is denied to any other, is as a property, and therefore beareth vim argumenti, the force of an argument; and I presume they thus intended it. Let them therefore choose. But if it be one thing to say the Church which is the infallible judge, must be a Church judging and teaching her self infallible, and another thing to say that that Church is infallible judge which teacheth her self to be so, then that Church which teacheth her self to be infallible may yet not be the infallible judge; and so there is destroyed (and by himself) also the necessity of consequence. But secondly, to answer them in kind, the Church which teacheth her self infallible is in this fallible, their Church teacheth her self to be infallible, the assumption is theirs; the proposition [Page 1081] is proved thus, either it is true or the antient Church was not infallible, because it did not teach her self to be infallible; which he saies is a necessary condition. Therefore either their consequence is not good, or they prove thereby the antient Church not to be the true Church, and so to be different from theirs. Thirdly, put case some other Church should bethink themselves as the Greek Church, and pretend to be infallible, the Roman consequence would hold but pro tempore; for then notwithstanding the supposition; supposed, the question which Church is the infallible judge, is yet to be decided by 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 [Page 1082] 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 [Page 1083] 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 no [...] 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, [...].
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. 12 [...]. 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. 52 [...]. l. 5. r. recidivation. p. 527. l. 9. [...] p. 528. l. 28. r. less p. 5 [...]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. 5 [...]0. l. 23. r. Sophisme, p. 544. l. 25. dele A. p. 550. l. 3 [...]. 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.