t YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Gift of the NEW HAVEN PUBLIC LIBRARY The English Theological Library General Editor Frederic Relton, A.K.C. Vicar of St. Andrew's, Stoke Newington With General Introduction by Mandell Creighton, D.D., D.C.L., etc. Sometime Lord Bishop of London. ; firc. 15. particulars. But yet neither scripture, nor any good authority, denies them some moderate use of their own understanding and judgment, especially in things famiUar and evident; which even ordinary^ capacities may as easily understand, as read. And therefore some particulars a Christian may judge without depending. Jf. This lady, therefore, having heard it granted in the first conference. That there must be a continual, visible 1 [Dean of Carlisle, and one of His whence the faculty which does this is Majesty's Chaplains at this time ; he called mind, the measuring power.] had held two conferences with Fishei Tho. [Aquin. Summ.J pars I. Q[uaest]. before this, in the presence of Lady 79. A[rt]. 9. ad 4. [p. 145.] — Migne, Buckingham; consecrated Bishop of i. 1122. To what end then, is a Carlisle in 1626 ; translated to Norwich mind and an understanding given a in 1628 ; to Ely in 1631 ; died in 1638.] man, if he may not apply it to measure '' Quis non sine uUo magistro, aut truth ? Et Stdvoia [dicitur] &Tb roi interprete ex se [sese] facile cognoscat, Siavoe-iv, i.e. ab eo quod considerat, [nonilludinChristomortuumessequod ac discernit. [The mind is styled the Deus est, sed illud in illo mortuum esse discerning faculty ; because it discerns quod homo est?] [Who needs a teacher and distinguishes.] — Damasc. 1. ii. or an interpreter to make him under- Pid. Orth. c. zi. Quia [ait Damasc] stand that what was dead in Christ discernit inter verum et falsum. [Itdis- was not the Godhead but the man- cerns between the true and the false.] hood?] — Novatian. rf« 7>z«. c. 23. Et And A. C. himself, p. 41, denies not loquitur de mysterio passionis Christi. all judgment to private men ; but says, [Novatianisspeakingaboutthe mystery "they are not so to rely absolutely of Christ's passion.] — Dijudicare est upon their private judgment, as to mensurare, etc. Unde et mens dicitur adventure salvation upon it alone, or a metiendo. [To decide is to measure, chiefly " ; which no man will deny. Is there an Infallible Church ? company ever since Christ, teaching unchanged doctrine Section in all fundamental points, that is, [in all] points neces- '^' sary to salvation, desired to hear this confirmed, and proof brought [to show] which was that continual, in fallible,^ visible Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot, attain salvation. And, therefore, having appointed a time of meeting between a [certain] ^. and me, and thereupon having sent for the |p. and me, before the ^. came, the lady, and a friend of hers, came first to the room where I was, and debated before me the aforesaid question, and not doubting of the first part, to wit. That there must be a continual visible Church, as they had heard granted by Dr. White, and L. K. [viz. the Lord Keeper] [etc.] . . . I. §. What Dr. White and the Lord Keeper granted, I heard § 3- not : but I think, both granted a continual and a visible Church ; j neither of them an infallible, at least in your sense. And yourself, in this relation, speak distractedly ; for, in these few lines, from the beginning hither, twice you add " infaUible " between " continual " and " visible," and twice you leave it out. But this concerns Dr. W., and he hath answered it. II. Here A. C* steps in, and says, "The Jesuit did not a. c. p. 42. speak distractedly, but most advisedly. For," saith he, "where he relates what Dr. White or L. K. granted, he leaves out the word 'infaUible,' because they granted it not; but where he speaks of the lady, there he adds it, because the Jesuit knew it was an infaUible Church which she sought to rely upon." '[The Chaplain noting the word ''[A. C. is the title under which infallible to be sometimes put in, Fisher answered Laud's first account sometimes left out, taxeth Mr. Fisher of the Conference. He published of speaking distractedly. But I note this book in 1626. The passage, herein, that Mr. Fisher spoke raost from "here A. C. steps in" to the advisedly, and with precise care of end of this section 3, does not exist punctual truth : for when he speaketh in the edition of 1624, (fraud's first of what was observed, or desired by answer) ; it was added in 1639. Thus the lady, he putteth in the word in the first edition the discussion infallible, because he knew it was an about the Greek Church virtually infallible Church which she sought to opens the Conference, and therefore rely upon. But when he speaketh of enables us to appreciate the pic- what Dr. White or L. K. granted, he turesqueness of the scene at York leaveth it out, because they did not House with Fisher instructing the mention the word infallible, but only Countess of Buckingham, the Marquis granted a visible Church in all ages, and the Lord Keeper and a few more teaching unchanged doctrine, in all in the stately parlour, when Laud is matters necessary to salvation. — A. C. shown in. ] T'Tue Relations of sundry Conferences. ] The Roman Church not infallible ( Chapter How far the CathoUc Militant Church of Christ is infallible, is '•' no dispute for this place, though you shaU find it after. But sure the Jesuit did not speak most advisedly, nor A. C. neither, nor the lady herself, if she said she desired to rely upon an infallible Church. For an infaUible Church denotes a particular Church, in that it is set in opposition to some other particular Church, that is not infallible. Now I, for my part, do not know what that lady desired to rely upon. This I know : if she desired such a particular Church, neither this Jesuit, nor any other, is able to show it her; no, not Bellarmine himself, though of very great abiUty to make good any truth, which he undertakes for the Church of Rome. But no strength can uphold an error against truth, ^ where truth hath an able de fendant. Now, where Bellarmine^ sets himself purposely to make this good, that "The particular Church of Rome cannot err in matter of faith," ^ out of which it follows, that there may be found a particular infalUble Church, you shall see what he is able to perform. III. I. First, then, after he hath distinguished, to express his meaning, in what sense the particular Church of Rome cannot err in things which are de fide, of the faith ; he tells us, this firmitude is, because the See Apostolic is fixed there. "And this," he saith, " is most true." ^ And for proof of it, he brings three Fathers ^ to justify it. (i.) The first, St. Cyprian,!" whose words are, "That the ^[Nam ipsa] vincat necesse est, sive I. [Secunda Propositio : Non solum negantem, sive confitentem. [For Pontifex Romanus] non potest errare in truth must convince a man whether fide, sed neque Romana particularis he denies or admits it at first.] — S. Ecclesia. [Not only is the Roman Augustin. Epist. 174. [238 ad Pas- Pope unable to err ; but also the par- centium, sect. 29. Op., Migne, ii. ticular Roman Church.] 1049.] Occultari potest ad tempus ^ Ibid. sect. 2. Veritas, vinci non potest. [Truth can ' [Viz. , Cyprian, p. 6 ; Jerome, p. be hidden for a time ; it cannot be II; Gregory Nazianzen, p. 14. See overcome.] — S.Aag.[Enarr.yn Psalm Bellarmin, hb. iv. ; De Rom. Pont. Ixi. [sect 16. Op., Migne, iv. 740.] c. 4. § 3.] ^[Roberto Bellarmino was born in ^"[Post ista adhuc insuper pseudo- Tuscany in 1542 ; was made Cardinal episcopo sibi ab hsereticis constitute,] by Clement VIH. and Archbishop of navigaie audent, [et] ad Petri Cathe- Capua. He was a member of the dram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem. Society of Jesus ; and it is thought [unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a might have been chosen Pope in the schismaticis et profanis literas ferre ;] place of Leo XL and again of Paul V. nec cogitare eos esse Romanos[quoruin if he had not been a Jesuit. Hedied fides apostolo prsedicante (Rom. i.) in 1621, having left public life in 1613. laudata est,] ad quos perfidia habere He was the most famous con troversi- non possit accessum. — Ep. 3. [After alist of his time.] these proceedings the heretics went ' Lib. iv. De Rom. Pont. c. 4. sect. on to appoint a sham bishop, and The proof from St. Cyprian examined 7 Romans are such, as to whom perfidia cannot have access." Section Now, perfidia can hardly stand for error in faith, or for mis- '''¦ belief; but it properly signifies malicious falsehood in matter of trust and action ; not error in faith, but in fact, against the discipline and government of the Church. And why may it not here have this meaning in St. Cyprian P^^ IV. For the story there ^^ it is this. In the year 255, there was a council in Carthage, in the cause of two schis matics, Felicissimus and Novatian,!^ about restoring of them to the communion of the Church which had lapsed, in time of danger, from Christianity to idolatry. Felicissimus would admit all, even without penance ; and Novatian would admit none, no, not after penance. The Fathers, forty-two in number, went, as the truth led them, between both extremes. To this councU came Privatus, a known heretic, but was not admitted, because he was formerly excommunicated, and often condemned. Hereupon he gathers his complices together, and chooses one Fortunatus, (who was formerly condemned, as well as himself,) Bishop of Carthage, and set him up against St. Cyprian. This done, Felicissimus and his fellows haste to Rome with letters testimonial from their own party, and pretend that twenty-five bishops concurred with them; and their desire was to be received into the communion of the Roman Church, and to have their new bishop acknowledged. CorneUus, ^^ then pope, dared to take ship and to bring letters Pope of Carthage. He was in constant to Peter's Chair and the leading church communication with Cornelius and from which the Episcopal (sacerdotalis Stephen, Popes of Rome, whom he in Cyprian) unity took its origin ; and always treats on a footing of equality. ] they never considered that their hosts ^^ Bin. Concil. tom. i. p. 152. edit. would be Romans whose faith is com- Paris, 1636. [Concil. Roman, ii. — mended in the Apostle's preaching Concil. ed. Labb. et Cossart., tom. i. (Rom. i.), and who could not be col. 715, A. B. C] Baron. Annal. accessible to "perfidia" (viz., perfidy an. 253, [num. 109,] 254, [num. 32 — or error in faith). Cf. Note 15.]— 107,] 255, [num. 1—30, tom. ii. ed. Cypr. 1. 1. [Ep. lv. ad Comelium de Romse, 1594.] Fortunato et Felicissimo, Op., p. 86. "[Novatian seems here confiised ed. Benedict. Duchesne translates withNovatus. Novatian was a Roman principalis ecclesia, the sovereign presbyter ; Novatus was an African church. The idea is evidently from presbyter in Carthage. Felicissimus the princeps senatus, the leading man was a deacon of the Carthaginian in the Republican Senate of equals. ] Church. The first Council of Carthage "[St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, was held in 251 ; the second in 252. 248-258 A.D., was converted to 252 was the date of the consecration Christianity in 246, when he was of Fortunatus as rival Bishop of already grown up ; was elected bishop Carthage against Cyprian. The dates shortly afterwards ; and suffered mar- are very difficult to ascertain exactly.] tyrdom in 258 during the Valerian " [Cornelius, a man of noble family, Persecution. His proper style was was elected Pope in March 251 A friendly letter to Pope Cornelius [Chapter though their haste had now prevented St. Cyprian's letters, '¦' having formerly heard from him both of them and their schism in Africa, would neither hear them nor receive their letters. They grew insolent and furious (the ordinary way that schismatics take). Upon this, Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian; and St. Cyprian, in this epistle, gives Cornelius thanks for refusing these African fugitives, declares their schism and wickedness at large, and encourages him, and aU bishops, to maintain the ecclesiastical discipUne and censures agamst any, the boldest, threatenings of wicked schismatics. This is the story; and in this is the passage here urged by BeUarmine. Now I would fain know why perfidia, all circumstances con sidered, may not stand here in its proper sense, for cunning and perfidious dealing, which these men, having practised at Carthage, thought now to obtrude upon the Bishop of Rome also, but that he was wary enough not to be overreached by busy schismatics? V. (2.) Secondly, let it be granted that perfidia^^ doth signify here, error in faith and doctrine. For I will not deny but that among the African writers, and Especially St. Cyprian, it is sometimes so used; and therefore here, perhaps. But then this privilege, of not erring dangerously in the faith, was not made over absolutely to the Romans, that are such by birth and dwelling only; but to the Romans, qua tales, as they were such as those first were, " whose faith was famous through the world," and as long as they continued such ; which, at that time, it seems they did. And so St. Cyprian's words seem to import, eos esse Romanes, that the Romans then, under Pope Rom. i. 8. Cornelius, were such as the apostle spake of, and therefore to whom, at that time (or any time, they stiU remaining such), perfidious misbeUef could not be welcome; or rather, indeed, perfidious misbelievers or schismatics could not be welcome. For this very phrase, perfidia non potest habere accessum, directs us to understand the word in a concrete sense; (see discussion as to date in Benson's edition : s.v. perfidia the Benedictine Cyprian). He died in banishment in edition gives reference only to passages June 253, and is honoured as a in which it is so used. The classical martyr. In his time Novatian made use appears to be always "treachery," a schism in the Roman Church and See for the treatment of important was consecrated as rival Pope.] passages in Cyprian by the modern ^^ [Perfidia is used in this sense by Roman controversialists, Benson's Cyprian in Epistle 55, and in the De Cyprian, p. 200 ff.] Unitate Ecclesiis, p. 197, Benedictine Written in courteous terms by St. Cyprian 9 " perfidiousness could not get access " ; that is, such perfidious Section persons, excommunicated out of other Churches, were not "'¦ likely to get access at Rome, or to find admittance into their communion. It is but a metonymy of speech, the adjunct for the subject ; a thing very usual even in elegant ^^ authors, and much more in later times, as in St. Cyprian's, when the Latin language was grown rougher. Now, if it be thus under stood, I say, in the concrete, then it is plain, that St. Cyprian did not intend by these words to exempt the Romans from possibiUty of error, but to brand his adversaries with a title due to their merit, calling them perfidious, that is, such as had betrayed or perverted the faith. Neither can we lose by this construction, as will appear at after. VI. (3.) But thirdly, when all is done, what if it be no more than a rhetorical excess of speech ; perfidia non potest, for non facile potest ; it "cannot," that is, "it cannot easily?" Or what if St. Cyprian do but laudando prcRcipere, by com- mendingi'^ them to be such, instruct them that such indeed they ought to be, to whom perfidiousness should not get access? Men are very bountiful of their compliments some times. Synesius, 1^ writing to Theophilus of Alexandria, begins thus : 'Eyw KoX ^o-uXofiai, KOI avdyKY) //.ot dda, [i/d/xov -^yela-dai TOVTO o TL av eKeivo's 6 Opovos ^etrTrio-i?'] " I both will, and a divine necessity lies upon me, to esteem it a law, whatsoever that throne," (meaning his of Alexandria,) "shall determine." Nay, the word is dtcnrl^eiv, and that signifies to determine like an oracle, or as in God's stead. Now, I hope you will say, this is not to be taken dogmatically ; it is but the epistoler's courtesy only. And why not the Uke here ? For the haste which these schismatics made to Rome prevented St. Cyprian's letters; yet Cornelius, very careful of both the truth and peace of the 1' ... Ego tibi istam [None noted the officialsas they passed, Scelestam, scelus, linguam abscindam. clothed in working clothes ; the con- [Wretch, I will cut out your wretched suis were not clad in purple. ] — Lucan. tongue.]— Plant. Amphit. [act ii. sc. i. [de Bell. Civil.-] lib. ii. [i8]. V. 6.] — Ex hae enim parte pudor "Nec cogitare eos esse Romanes, pugnat, aimcpetulantia, &c. [On the quorum fides apostolo pr^dicante, &c. one side modest men are the cham- [v. supra, p. 6, note lo.] pions ; on the other petulant men.] — ^^ Epist. 67. Cic. in [L. Catilin. Orat. ii. sect. 25. [Born in 370, consecrated by Theo- (al. II.)] — philus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to . . . latuit plebeio tectus amictu the See of Ptolemais 410; died «>.,p.ioo.ed.Dupin.i7oo.] Ouomodo dieTh.. m I ^°""' °^ °''"'=' ^""^ "= P™='' =™^ bapti Jntur parentum 29n„; 1 cj ¦ r . ¦ . , , fides, quorum eis non potest obesseper- FfraHh, Jr ^ virtutis] dux fidia? [How can their parents' faith do et a^d",Hr .T P •"'¦"'¦ ^"^^'"^ '^^"^ g°°' ^ Kal iSiair- faith. Or, on this rock of which thou Tiirrw ipr^peiorai Te Kal SiaTriintyev t) hast made confession, that is, on My- iKKKriula XpurToO, Kal a^ais ivaXuiTos self as the corner-stone.] — Dion[ysii] TOIS ^iSoii TiXats eUrael Siap^vovaa. Carthus[iani in quatuor Evangelia I think that by bringing together two Enarrationes, art. xxix. ] in St. Matth. words (with different meanings, but xvi. 18. [fol. lv. C. ed. Paris. 1542.] of similar sound, Latin) of slightly ^ Bellar. lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. cap. different sound (Greek), He called the iii. sect, penult. 1 6 Rufinus says no heresies began in Rome [Chapter together, they wUl make no more for Bellarmine and his cause, '•^ than the former places have done. Ruffinus' words then run thus:^^ "Before I come to the words of the Creed, this I think fit to warn you of; — That in divers Churches some things are found added to the words (of the Creed). But in the Church of the city of Rome, this is not found done : and as I think, it is for that no heresy did take its rise or beginning there ; and for that the old custom is there observed, namely, that they which are to receive the grace of baptism do pubUcly repeat the Creed in the hearing of the people, who would not admit such additions. But in other places, as far as I can understand, by reason of some heretics, some things were added, but such as were to exclude the sense of their novel doctrine." Now these words make little for Bellarmine, who cites them, and much against Ruffinus that uttered them. They make little for Bellarmine. First, because, suppose Ruffinus' speech to be true, yet this will never follow : in Ruffinus' time, no heresy had taken its beginning at Rome ; therefore no heresy hath had rooting there so many hundred years since. Secondly, BeUarmine takes upon him there to prove, that the particular Church of Rome cannot err. Now neither can this be con cluded out of Ruffinus' words. First, because, as I said before, to argue from non sumpsit to ergo sumere non potest, — no heresy hath yet begun there, therefore none can begin there, or spring thence, — is an argument drawn ab actu ad potentiam negative, from the act to the power of being, which every novice in learning can tell proceeds not negatively. And common reason tells every man, it is no consequence to say. Such a thing is not, or hath not been, therefore it cannot be. Secondly, because though it were true, that no heresy at all did ever take its beginning at Rome, yet that can never prove that the particular Church of Rome can never err, (which is =^ IUud non importune commonen- sermonis, eorum qui praecesserunt in dum puto, quod in diversis ecclesiis fide non admittit auditus. In CEeteris aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur autem locis, quantum intelligi datur, adjecta. In ecclesia tamen urbis propter nonnullos hsereticos addita Rom« hoc non deprehenditur factum: quaedam videntur, per quje novelise [quod ego] pro eo [esse] arbitror, doctrinae sensus crederetur excludi, quod neque hjeresis uUa illic sumpsit etc.— Rufin. in Expont. Symbol (ut exordium, et mos ibi servatur anti- habetur inter Opera S. Cypriani,) quus, eos qui gratiam baptismi sus- Praefat. Expos. [Opusc. vulgo S. Cypr. cepturi sunt, publice, id est, fidelium adscript, col. cxcix. ad calcem ed. populo audiente, symbolum reddere, Benedict.] et utique adjectionem unius saltem Novatianism began in Rome 17 the thing in question). For suppose that no heresy did ever Sbctiok begin there, yet if any, that began elsewhere, were admitted ""• into that Church, it is as full a proof that that Church can err, as if the heresy had been hatched in that nest. For that Church errs which admits a heresy into it, as well as that which broaches it. Now, Ruffinus says no more of the Roman Church than non sumpsit exordium, "no heresy took its begin ning there " ; but that denies not, but that some heretical taint might get in there. And it is more than manifest, that the most famous heresies in their several times made their abode even at Rome. And it is observable too, that Bellarmine cites no more of Ruffinus' words than these : In ecclesia urbis Roma neque haresis ulla sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatur antiquus, as if this were an entire speech ; whereas it comes in but as a reason given of the speech precedent ; and as if Ruffinus made the Church of Rome the great observer of the customs of the Church ; whereas he speaks but of one particular custom of reciting the Creed before baptism. But after all this, I pray. Did no heresy ever begin at Rome? Where did Novatianism begin ? At Rome, sure. For Baronius,*" Pamelius,*^ and Petavius, *2 do all dispute the point, whether that sect was denominated from Novatianus the Roman priest, or Novatus the African bishop ; and they conclude for Novatian. He then that gave that name is in all right the founder, and Rome the nest, of that heresy : and there it continued with a succes sion ^^ of bishops from Cornelius to Cselestine, which is near ^'' Baron, tom. ii. an. 254. num. 62. etiam patet a Novatiano dictos illos [Baronius, member of the Oratory haereticos, non a Novato. It is thus of St. Philip Neri, cardinal, published made evident that those heretics are the Annals of the Church, between named after Novatian and not after 1588 and 1607.] Novatus. — Id. in Epist. Ixxiii. ad "Parael. in Cyprian. Epist. xli. Jubdianum, Op., p. 188, et p. 129. [Erat hic Novatianus Ecclesiae Ro- Ed. Benedict.] manse presbyter. . . . Hic autem [Jacobus Pamelius published in primum in ecclesia schisma con- iC)'ji the Liturgy of the Latins.-] citavit. . . . Eusebius et Nicephorus *^ Petavius in Epiphan. Hares, lix. ... uterque, et sic etiam Socrates, [Petavius, a Jesuit, published his De vicinitate nominum (sc. Novatiani Doctrina Temporum in 1627 ; died et Novati) falsi, Novatum ilium in 1652.] vocant non recte. This Novatian ^ Onuph. in Notis ad Plat, in vita was a priest of the Roman Church Cornelii. [Post S. Fabiani obitum ... he first stirred a schism in the et Cornelii electionem, primum in Church. Both Eusebius and Nice- Ecclesia Romana schisma fuisse con- phoras, and also Socrates, deceived stat. Novatianus enim quidam by the similarity of names, call him presbyter S.R.E. ambitionis spiritu Novatus. — In Epist. xli. ad Cor- inflatus . . . pontificatum contra nelium, p. 80. ed. Paris. 1616, et p. Cornelium Romas assumpsit ... a 55- ei Benedict.] et Ixxiii. [Hine quo hEeresis Novatianorum manavit. L. ¦ B i8 Other heresies began in Rome (Chapter upon two hundred years. Nay, could Ruffinus himself be '•] ignorant that some heresy began at Rome? No, sure. For in this I must chaUenge him either for his weak memory or his wilful error; for Ruffinus had not only read Eusebius' history, but had been at the pains to translate him. Now, Eusebius** says plainly, that "some heretics spread their venom in Asia, some in Phrygia, and others grew at Rome, and Florinus *5 was the ringleader of them." And more clearly after, "Irenaeus" saith he, "directed divers epistles against this Florinus, and his fellow Blastus, and condemns them of such heresies as threw them and their followers into great impiety, etc. ; those at Rome corrupting the sound doctrine of the Church." Therefore most manifest it is, that some heresy had its rise and beginning at Rome. But to leave this slip of Ruffinus, most evident it is, that Ruffinus neither did nor could account the particular Church of Rome infallible ; for if he had esteemed so of it, he would not have . . . Hujus Novatiani in episcopatu successores Romae usque ad Caeles- tini Papae pontificatum perman- serunt. After the death of St. Fabian and the election of Cor nelius, the first schism in the Roman Church took place. For a certain presbyter of the Church, called Novatian, puffed up with ambition, assumed the Pontificate of Rome in opposition to Cornelius. From him sprang the heresy of the Novatians, and there were episcopal successors of this Novatian at Rome until the time of Pope Celestine, viz. 422 a.d. — Onuphr. in Platin. Vit. Pontific. p. 33. ed. Colon. 1568.] ¦"Haeretici alii in morem venena- torum serpentum in Asiam et Phry- giam irrepserunt, oi 5' iirl "Pii/iTis ¦IJK/j.a^ov, quorum Dux Florinus. Some heretics like venomous snakes crept into Asia and Phrygia, and others flourished at Rome, and Florinus was their chief. — Euseb. lib. V. cap. 14. And in Rufinus' trans lation, I,. 15. [Sed in urbe Romse Florinus quidam gradu presbyteri de ecclesia lapsus una cum Blasto socio criminis et furoris, plurimos de ecclesia in suum barathrum deduce- bant nova adversum veritatem fig- menta machinantes. But in the city of Rome a certain Florinus of priestly rank having forsaken the Church, together with Blastus who helped him in his crime and his madness, drew away many from the Church into his abyss, by inventing new lies against the truth. — p. 115. B. Euseb. Ruffino interpret, apud Autor. Hist. Ecclesiast. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1539.] And then afterwards, c. 19 and 20. 6{ ivavrlas Si t^v iirl 'PuJyUT^s Thv vyLTj TTJs e/c/fXT^trftts defffibv irapaxapaTT6vT0}v, [ElpTjvalos dia^povt iTTLO-ToXas (rvvTaTTet.- ttjv fiiv eTrtypa.. ^os, irpbs SXda-Tov irepl (rx'c/wros' -riiv di Trpds ^Xdjp-ivov irepl pLovapxias, ij irepl TOV fiTi elvai Tbv Beov iroi-qT^v KaKwV But, on the other side, when the people at Rome were falsifying the sound rule of the Church, Irenaeus com posed several epistles : one he wrote to Blastus about schism, another to Florinus about the monarchia, or about God not being the author of evil. Euseb. Ibid. p. 237. ed. Read ing.] Now this Blastus taught that God was the author of sin. ¦''[A contemporary of Irenaeus, he had been, like Irenasus, a disciple of Polycarp ; he pushed monarchianism to such an extreme as to make God the author of evil. Irenaeus (died 202 A.D.) wrote to reason with him, appeahng to the instruction of their mutual master, Polycarp of Smyrna.] Rufinus dissents from Rome on the Canon 19 dissented from it in so main a point as is the canon of the Section Scripture, as he plainly doth ; for, reckoning *'^ up the canonical '"¦ books, he most manifestly dissents from the Roman Church. Therefore, either Ruffinus did not think the Church of Rome was infaUible, or else the Church of Rome at this day reckons up more books within the canon than heretofore she did. If she do, then she is changed in a main point of faith, the canon of Scripture, and is absolutely convinced not to be infallible; for if she were right in her reckoning then, she is wrong now ; and if she be right now, she was wrong then ; and if she do not reckon more now than she did when Ruffinus Uved, then he reckons fewer than she, and so dissents from her ; which doubtless he durst not have done, had he thought her judgment infallible. Yea, and he sets this ^ark upon his dissent besides,*^ that he reckons up the books of the canon just so and no otherwise than as " he received them out of the monuments of the forefathers, and out of which the assertions of our faith are to be taken." Last of all, had this place of Ruffinus any strength for the infallibility of the Church of Rome, yet there is very little reason that the pope and his clergy should take any benefit by it. For St. Jerome *^ tells us, That when Ruffinus was angry with him for an epistle which he writ not, he plainly sent him to the Bishop of Rome, ^Rv&n.m Exposit. Symbol, p. 188. ut non reciperet expositionem fidei [sect. 37, 38. col. ccxxiv. ad calcem tuae, quam omnis, ut scribis, Italia S. Cyprian, ed Benedict. He distin- comprobavit ; [et baculo tuarum uti guishes between the Canonical Books noluerit literarum contra canes tuos. ] and the Ecclesiastical Books which Deinde, ut [Epistolas contra te ad form the Apocrypha.] In which Orientem mitteret, et] cauterium tibi reckoning he plainly agrees with the haereseos, dum nescis, inureret. [But Church of England, Art. vi. if it comes from the Bishop of Rome, ¦"Novi ac veteris Testamenti volu- you are foolish to ask for a copy of mina,etc.,sicutexPatrum monumentis the letter from a man to whom none accepimus.— Rufin. in Symb. p. l88. such has been sent. . . . Go rather to [sect. 36. col ccxxiv.] — Et haec sunt Rome, and expostulate with him face quae Patres intra Canonem con- to face, for abusing you in your cluserunt ; et ex quibus fidei nostrae absence and when you are innocent ; assertiones constare voluerunt. [And First, that he did not receive your these are those which the Fathers in- exposition of faith which according to eluded in the Canon, and out of your letter all Italy approved : and which they decided to prove the would not use your letter as a rod statements of our faith.] Ib. p. 189. against the dogs who howl against * Si [autem] Romani Episcopi est, you : Next that he sent letters into stulte facis ab eo exemplar Epistolae the East against you, and branded petere, cui missa non est, etc. Vade you with the brand of heresy behind potius Romam, et prssens apud eum your back.] S. Hieron, Apol. iii. expostula, cur tibi et absent! et adver s. Rufin. fol. 85. K. [Op., innocenti fecerit injuriam. Primum, tom. iv. par ii. col. 457.] 20 Rufinus and the Pope differed about the Creed [Chapter and bade him expostulate with him for the contumely put upon I-l him, in that he received not his exposition of the faith, which, said he, all Italy approved ; and in that he branded him also, dum nesciret, "behind his back," with heresy. Now, if the pope which then was, rejected this exposition of the creed made by Ruffinus, and branded him besides with heresy, his sentence against Ruffinus was just or unjust. If unjust, then the pope erred about a matter of faith; and so neither he nor the Church of Rome infalUble. If just, then the Church of Rome labours to defend herself by his pen, which is judged heretical by herself. So, whether it were just or unjust, the Church of Rome is driven to a hard strait, when she must beg help of him whom she branded with heresy, and out of that tract which she herself rejected; and so uphold her infaUibihty by the judgment of a man, who in her judgment had erred so foully. Nor may she by any law*^ take benefit of a testimony which herself hath defamed and protested against. Seven, Ed. XIII. With theso Bellarmine is pleased to name six popes, i686.r which, he saith, are all of this opinion. But he adds,^" "that these testimonies will be contemned by the heretics." Good words, I pray ! I know whom the Cardinal meant by heretics ^ Quum quis se velle personas martyrs, Agatho and Nicolas, popes testium post publicationem repellere and confessors . . . declared that not fuerit protestatus. Si quid pro ipso only the Pope but also the Roman dixerint, iis non creditur. [When a Church could not err. ... I add also man has protested that he wishes to the witness of two popes, which, repel particular witnesses after the though they will be rejected by the publication of their names : should heretics, must be received with re- they say anything on his behalf, they spect by Catholics. One is firom are not to be believed.] — Extra. Tex. Martin V. (1418 A.D.) ; the other et ibi Gloss, c. Prcesentium, xxxi. from Sixtus IV. (1478 A.D.) Of de Testibus. [This is not from the these witnesses the two earliest, viz. Extravagantes, but from the Decretals Pope Lucius (a.d. 256) and Pope of Gregory IX.— Lib. ii. sect. xx. ; Felix (a.d. 273) are quoted by Bellar- de Testibus, cap (xxxi. ) Prcesentium. ] mine from the false Decretals, and their ^"Bell. lib. iv. de Rom. Pontif. t. 4. writings are now admitted on all sides to sect. 5. [Nam auctores citati, ut Lucius be spurious. These pseudo-Isidorian et Felix, papae et martyres ; Agatho Decretals (so called from Isidore of et Nicolaus, papae et confessores . . . Seville, a famous collector of Deere- non solum pontificem, sed etiam tals) appear first at Maintz in the Ecclesiam Romanum, asseruerunt ninth century, and are first quoted non posse errare] . . . Addo etiam authoritatively by Pope Nicholas (858- [duorum pontificum testimonia,] quae 867 A.D. ). They consist of a number etsi ab haereticis contemnantur, of decisions contained in letters, and [tamen o. Catholicis cum honore re- supposed to have been issued by the cipienda sunt. Unum est Martini early Popes, beginning with Clement ; Papa V. Alterum est Sixti Papa IV. they include the famous pseudo-Dona- (an. 1478.) For the witnesses, whom tion of Constantine the Emperor.] I quote, Lucius and Felix, popes and Proof from the writings of Popes 21 very well; but the best is, his call cannot make them so. Nor shaU I easily contemn six ancient bishops of Rome con curring in opinion, if apparent verity in the thing itself do not force me to dissent; and in that case I shall do it without contempt too. This only I will say,^i that six popes concurring Section III. '^ Nenimi in sua causa credendum, nisi conformiter ad legem divinam: naturalem, et canonicam loquatur : [juri autem divino et naturali repug- nat, caput ministeriale imperium habere absolutum in Ecclesiam. No one is to be believed giving witness on his own behalf, except he speak in accordance with the Divine Law, the Law of Nature, and the Canon Law. But it is contrary to the Divine Law and the Law of Nature that a minister should have absolute rule in the Church.] So Jo. Gerson, and the doctors of Paris cited in Lib. Anon, de Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate, t. xvi. ed. Paris. l5l2. Now these popes do not speak here conformably to these laws. — [The author of this work, first published anonymously, Paris. 1612, was Edmund Richer, Syndic of the faculty of divinity in the Sorbonne. Of the circumstances attending its publication, a full account is in Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gal. lib. vi. cap. 25. Oeuvres de Bossuet, tom. xxxii. p. 389. ed Versailles. 1817. An Enghsh translation of it appeared in the same year, under the title "A Treatise of Ecclesiasticall and Politike Power, &c. Faithfully translated out of the Latin originall, of late publicly printed and allowed in Paris. Now set foorth for a fiirther warrant and encouragement to the Roman CathoUkes of England, for theyr taking of the Oath of Allegiance; seeing so many others of their owne profession in other countries doe deny the Popes infalibility in judgement and tem porall power over Princes, directly gainst the doctrine of Jesuits." London. 1612. The last and most complete edition of the work, with the Defences, documents, references, etc., together with some curious opuscula connected with it, is that of Cologne, 1701, in two volumes quarto. In Lib. i. cap. i. sect. 12. of the Defensio Libelli de Eccl. et Politic. Potest, tom. i. p. 12. ed. Colon., Richer recites the ancient doctrine held on the Gallican liberties by the Paris Schools. These prin ciples are fully indicated in the Decree which they passed in 1429, against John Sarrazin, (printed in the Libell. de Eccl. et Politic. Potest. Demonst. cap. xviii.) and repeated in the Decree of 161 1, (printed in the preface to the Def. Libelli, etc. p. i. — iii.) Sarrazin in his recanta tion subscribed the following articles, which may be considered as a summary of the views of Gerson, Alraain, etc., formally embodied by their successors in the Parisian Schools:— I. Omnes potestates juris- dictionis Ecclesiasticas, ali^ a papali potestate, sunt ab ipso Christo quantum ad institutionem et colla tionem primariam : a Papa autem et ab Ecclesia quantum ad limita- tionem et dispensationem minis- terialem. — 2. Hujusmodi potestates sunt de jure divino, et immediate institutos a Deo. — 3. Invenitur in sacra Scriptura Christum Ecclesiam fundasse, et potestates alias a papali expresse ordinasse. — 4. Quan- docunque in aliquo concilio aliqua instituuntur, tota auctoritas dans vigorem statutis residet non in solo summo Pontifice, sed princi- paliter in Spiritu Sancto et Ecclesia Catholica. — 5. Ex textu Evangelii et doctrina apostolorum habetur expresse, apostolis et discipulis a Christo missis auctoritatem juris- dictionis fuisse coUatam. — 6. Dicere inferiorum praelatorum potestatem jurisdictionis, sive sint episcopi, sive sint curati, esse immediate a Deo, evangelicae et apostolicae consonat veritati. — 7. Aliqua potestas, scilicet potestas Ecclesiae, de jure potest aliquid in certis casibus contra sum- mum pontificem. — 8. Quicunque purus viator habens usum rationis cujuscumque dignitatis, auctoritatis aut praseminentiae, etiamsi Papalis existat, simoniam potest commit- 2 2 Rome has altered the Sacrament of Communion [Chapter in Opinion shall have less weight with me in their own cause II than any other six of the more ancient Fathers. Indeed, could I swallow Bellarmine's 62 opinion, that the pope's judgment is infaUible, I would then submit without any more ado. But that wUl never down with me, unless I live till I dote, which I hope in God I shaU not. XIV. Other proofs than these Bellarmine brings not to prove that the particular Church of Rome cannot err in or from the faith; and of what force these are to sway any judgment, I submit to aU indiff'erent readers. And having thus examined BeUarmine's proofs that the particular Church of Rome cannot A. c. p. 4=. err in faith, I now return to A. C. and the Jesuit, and tell them, that no Jesuit, or any other, is ever able to prove any particular Church infallible. XV. But for the particular Church of Rome, and the pope with it, erred it hath, and therefore may err. Erred I say it hath, in the worship of images, and in altering Christ's institu tion in the blessed sacrament, by taking away the cup from the people, and divers other particulars, as shall appear at after.^' And as for the ground which is presumed to secure this Church from error, it is very remarkable how the learned Cardinal^* cere. — i. Every authority carrying bishops or curates, comes direct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction, except the God. — 7. A power, that is the power papal authority, derives indeed from of the Church, has rights in certain Christ Himself its original institution cases against the supreme Pontiff. and appointments, but from the — 8. Every Christian having the use Pope and from the Church its of any kind of dignity, authority, or ministerial limitation and steward- pre-eminence, even thepapal is capable ship. — 2. Authorities of this kind of committing simony.] are by divine right, and appointed '^ Lib. iv. de RomJ Pont. c. iii. direct by God. — 3. We find in the [Sit igitur prima propositio : Summus Holy Scriptures that Christ founded Pontifex, cum totam ecclesiam docet, the Church, and expressly ordained in his quae ad fidem pertinent, nullo other powers besides the papal. — 4. casu errare potest. — Therefore let Whenever in any Council anything our first proposition be " The supreme is decreed, the whole authority which Pontiff, when he teaches the whole gives power to the statutes resides not Church, in matters which pertain to in the supreme Pontiff by himself, the faith, can in no case err."] but primarily in the Holy Spirit and ^^[V. infra,] Sect, xxxiii. Con- in the Catholic Church. — 5. It is sideration, vii. 5, 12. expressly proved from the text of the *> Romana Ecclesia particularis non Gospel and the teaching of the potest errare, persistente Romae apos- Apostles that a power of jurisdiction tolica sede. Propositio haec est veris- was bestowed on the Apostles and sima, et fortasse tam vera quam ilia disciples sent out by Christ.— 6. It is prima de Pontifice. [The particular agreeable to the truth taught by the Roman Church cannot err, so long as Gospel and by the Apostles to say the Apostolic See remains at Rome. that the power of jurisdiction posse.ssed This is a most true proposition and it by the inferior prelates, whether seems equally true withthefirstproposi- Rome and St. Peter's Chair 23 speaks in this case; for he teUs us, that this proposition, So Section long as St. Peter's chair is at Rome, that particular Church '"• cannot err in the faith, is verissima, " most true " ; and yet, in the very next words, it is fortasse tam vera, "peradventure as true " as the former : that is. That the pope, when he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the faith, cannot err in any case. What ! is that proposition " most true," and yet is it but at a "peradventure it is as true as this"? Is it possible any thing should be absolutely most true, and yet under a peradventure that it is but as true as another truth? But here, without all peradventure, neither proposition is true. And then, indeed, Bellarmine may say, without a fortasse, that this proposition, The particular Church of Rome cannot err, so long as the see apostolic is there, is as true as this : The pope cannot err, while he teaches the whole Church in those things which belong to the faith. For neither of them is true. But he cannot say that either of them is verissima, "most true," when neither of them hath truth. XVI. 2. Secondly, if the particular Church of Rome be infallible, and can neither err in the faith nor fall from it, then it is because the see apostolic cannot be transferred from Rome, but must ever, to the consummation of the world, remain there, and keep that particular Church from erring. Now, to this what says Bellarmine ? What ? Why, he tells us,^' that it is a pious and most probable opinion to think so. And he reckons four probabilities that it shall never be removed from Rome. And I will not deny but some of them are fair probabilities ; hut yet they are but probabilities, and so unable to convince any man. Why but then, what if a man cannot think as Bellar mine doth, but that, enforced by the light of his understanding, he must think the quite contrary to this, which Bellarmine tion concerning the Pope.] — Lib. iv. ;/« batur primo ex eo quod tamdiu Rom. Pont. c. 4. § 2. — And that first mansit Romae sedes Apostolica non proposition is this : Summus Pontifex, obstantibus infinitis persecutionibus, cum totam ecclesiam docet, in his quae etc. That however for all this, it is a ad fidem pertinent, nullo casu errare pious and most probable opinion that potest. [The Supreme Pontiff, when the Chair of St. Peter cannot be re- he teaches the whole Church inmatters moved from Rome, and further that which pertain to the faith, cannot the Roman Church is absolutely in- err.] — Ibid. c. 3. § i. capable of error or failure, is proved "'[Quod nihilominus tamen] pia et in the first place by the fact that the probabilissima sit sententia, non posse Apostolic See has remained so long at separari Petri Cathedram a Roma, et Rome in spite of numberless persecu- proinde Romanam Ecclesiam absolute tions, etc.] — Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. non posse errare, nec deficere, [pro- lib. iv. c. 4. sect. 5. 24 Position of the Greek Church [Chapter thinks pious, and so probable? What then? Why, then '•' Bellarmine himself tells you, that " the quite contrary proposi tion to this," namely, that St. Peter's chair may be severed from Rome, and that then that particular Church may err, "is neither heretical nor manifestly erroneous." ^^ So then, by BeUarmine's own confession, I am no heretic, nor in any manifest error, if I say, as indeed I do, and think it too, that it is possible for St. Peter's chair to be carried from Rome, and that then at least, by his own argument, that Church may err. XVII. Now, then, upon the whole matter, and to retum to A. c. p. 42. A. C. If that lady desired to rely upon a particular infaUible '1 Church, it is not to be found on earth. Rome hath not that gift, nor her bishop neither. And Bellarmine, who, I think, was as able as any champion that Church hath, dares not say it is either heresy or a manifest error to say, that the apostolic see may be removed thence, and that Church not only err in faith, but also fall quite away from it. Now I, for my part, have not ignorance enough in me to believe that that Church which may apostatize at some one time, may not err at another ; especially since both her erring and failing may arise from other causes besides that which is mentioned by the Cardinal. And if it may err, it is not infallible. Jf. The question was, Which was that Church? A friend of the lady's would needs defend, that not only the Roman, but also the Greek Church,*'' was right. § 4. ^. When that honourable personage answered, I was not by to hear. But I presume he was so far from granting that only the Roman Church was right, as that he did not grant it right; and that he took on him no other defence of the poor Greek Church than was according to truth. Jf. I told him, That the Greek Church had plainly changed, and taught false in a point of doctrine concerning the ^ Contraria sententia nec est hae- church of Rome ; and I believe others retica, riec manifeste erronea.— [Bel- also would think so as well as I, but larm.] lib. iv. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. for that reason which one gives, why sect. 5. [At secundum.] more men hold the pope above a "[If your arguments did conclude council, than a council above a pope; (as they do not) that before Luther's that is, because councils give no main- time there was some church of one tenance or preferment, and the popes denomination which was the Catholic do. Chillingworth, Works, vol. iii. Church, I should much rather think 289.] it were the church of Greece than the The Procession of the Holy Ghost 25 Holy Ghost ; and that I had heard say, that even His Section Majesty should say, That the Greek Church having '^• erred against the Holy Ghost, had lost the Holy Ghost. ^. You are very bold with His Majesty, to relate him upon § 5. hearsay. My intelligence serves me not to tell you what His Majesty said ; but if he said it not, you have been too credu lous to believe, and too sudden to report it. Princes deserve, and were wont to have, more respect than so. If His Majesty did say it, there is truth in the speech ; the error is yours only, by mistaking what is meant by losing the Holy Ghost. For a particular Church may be said to lose the Holy Ghost two ways, or in two degrees, i. The one, when it loses such special assistance of that blessed Spirit as preserves it from all dangerous errors and sins, and the temporal punishment which is due unto them. And in this sense the Greek Church did perhaps lose the Holy Ghost ; for they erred against Him, they sinned against God; and for this, or other sins, they were delivered into another Babylonish captivity under the Turk, in which they yet are, and from which God in His mercy deliver them ! But this is rather to be called an error circa Spiritum Sanctum, about the doctrine " conceming the Holy Ghost," than an error against the Holy Ghost. 2. The other is, when it loses not only this assistance, but all assistance ad hoc, to this, that they may remain any longer a true Church ; and so Corinth and Ephesus, and divers other Churches, have lost the Holy Ghost But in this sense the whole Greek Church lost not the Holy Ghost; for they continue a true Church, in the main substance, to and at this day, though erroneous in this point which you mention, and perhaps in some other too. Jf. The lady's friend, not knowing what to answer, called in the Bishop, who, sitting down first, excused** himself as one unprovided, and not much studied in controversies ; and desiring that, in case he should fail, yet the Protestant cause might not be thought ill of '*[The Chaplain taxeth the Jesuit, a simple and true narration of what as if in this parcel he did insult, and was said. Neither do I see less saith it was the g.'s modesty to use modesty in the Jesuit's preferring a this excuse, and to say "there were a thousand before himself, than in the hundred scholars better than he." g. 's preferring a hundred before him- But I do not see any insultation, but self. — A. C. marg. note to p. 43.] 26 Laud's sense of personal insufficiency [Chapter §. This is most true; for I did indeed excuse myself, and '1 I had great reason so to do. And my reason being grounded § 6. upon modesty for the most part, there I leave it. Yet this it may be fit others should know, that I had no information where the other conferences brake off", no instruction at all what should be the ground of this third conference, nor the fuU time of four-and-twenty hours to bethink myself. And this I take upon my credit is most true; whereas you make the sifting of these and the like questions to the very bran your daily work, and came thoroughly furnished to the business, and might so lead on the controversy to what yourself pleased, and I was to foUow as I could. St. Augustine said once, Scio me invalidum esse, "I know I am weak " ; *^ and yet he made good his cause. And so perhaps may I against you. And in that I preferred the cause before my particular credit, that which I did was with modesty, and according to reason. For there is no reason the weight of this whole cause should rest upon any one particular man ; and great reason, that the personal defects of any man should press himself, but not the cause. Neither did I enter upon this service out of any forwardness of my own, but com manded to it by supreme authority. Jf. ... it having an hundred better scholars to maintain it than he. To which I said. There were a thousand better scholars than I to maintain the Catholic cause. § 7. ^. In this I had never so poor a conceit of the Protestants' cause, as to think that they had but an hundred better than myself to maintain it. That which hath an hundred, may have as many more as it pleases God to give, and more than you. And I shall ever be glad that the Church of England, which, at this time, if my memory reflect not amiss, I named, may have far more able defendants than myself I shall never envy them, but rejoice for her. And I make no question, but that if I had named a thousand, you would have multiplied yours into ten thousand for the Catholic cause, as you call it. And this confidence of yours hath ever been fuller of noise than proof. But you proceed, Jf. Then the question about the Greek Church being pro posed, I said as before, That it had erred. '^^ De Util. Credendi, [contra Manichaos,] t. ii. [S. Augustin. Op., tom. viii. col. 48. B. ed. Benedict.] Greeks do not deny the Procession from the Son 27 ^. Then I think the question about the Greek Church was Section proposed. But after you had, with confidence enough, not ^"'¦ spared to say, that what I would not acknowledge in this cause, you would wring and extort from me ; then indeed you said as before, that it had erred ; and this no man denied. But every error denies not Christ, the foundation ; or makes Christ deny it, or thrust it from the foundation. Jf. The ^. said, that the error was not in point funda mental. ^. I. I was not so peremptory. My speech was, that § 9. divers learned men, and some of your own, were of opinion, that, as the Greeks expressed themselves, it was a question not simply fundamental. I know and acknowledge that error, of denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to be a grievous error in divinity. And sure, it would have grated the foundation, if they had so denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as that they had made an inequaUty between the Persons. But since their form of speech is,''" That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, and is the Spirit of the Son, without making any difference in the consubstantiality of the Persons ; I dare not deny them to be a true Church for this, though I confess them an erroneous Church in this particular. II. Now that divers learned men were of opinion, that a Filio et per Filium, in the sense of the Greek Church, was but a question i?i modo loquendi, " in manner of speech," ^^ and ™ Non ex Filio esse dicimus : sed divine Apostle, he is not Christ's ; and Filii Spiritum. — Damascen. lib. i. we confess that He has been mani- Fid. Orth. c. ll. [p. 272. A. B. ed. fested by the Son, and is given to us Billii.] — Et Patris per Filium. — Ibid. by the Son. — S. Joann. Damascen. [T4 ii Tvevfia Tb dytov, Kal eK tov De Fid. Orthodox, lib. i. cap. 8. Op., rarpis Xiyop^ev, Kal irveu/j.a iraTpbs Migne, i. 832-3.] 6vop,iioii£V iK TOV vlov Si Tb irveviw. *^ [Talis autem] pluralitas in voce, 0^ X^7ojitci» ¦ irveSp-a Si vlov dvopLdl^opiev salvata unitate in re, non repugnat el Tl! ydp Tb irvev/m XpiffToD ovk kxei, unitati fidei. [Now such a difference (jyq(Tlv 6 Beio! dirbo-ToXos, oSros oiK in words, so long ais the unity in fact l/or. Concil. Trident. lici omnis ingenia sua atque judicia Kb. ii. p. 153. ed. Aug. Trinobant. sponte subjiciunt, [decretum audia- 1620.] 58 The Articles are the public doctrine [Chapter Church of England," this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome. And I, for my part, cannot but wonder A. c. p. 47. A. C. should not know it. For he says, that " for aught he knows," private men are not allowed so to express their Catholic doctrine. And in the same question, both Catharinus*^ and Bellarmine 8* take on them to express your Catholic faith : the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega, and perhaps in some respects more. Jf. But if Mr. Rogers . . . be . . . only a private man, in what book may we find the Protestants' public doctrine? The ^. answered, that to the book of Articles they were all sworn; . . . § 14- §. I. What ! was I so ignorant to say, " The Articles of the Church of England were the public doctrine of aU the Pro testants"; or, "That aU Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England," as this speech seems to imply? Sure I was not. Was not the immediate speech before, of the Church of England? And how comes the subject of the speech to be varied in the next lines ? Nor yet speak I this, as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest doctiines, and in the main exceptions which they jointly take agamst the Roman Church, as appears by their several Confessions. But if A. C. will say, as he doth, " That because there was speech before of the Church of England, the Jesuit understood me in a Umited sense, and meant only the Protestants of the EngUsh Church,"— be it so ; there is no great harm done ^5 but this, that the Jesuit offers to enclose me too much. For I did not say, that the Book of Articles only was the continent of the Church of England's public doctrine. She is not so narrow, nor hath she purpose to exclude anything which she acknowledges hers, nor doth she wittingly permit any crossing of her public declarations; yet she is not such a shrew to her children as to deny her blessing, or denounce an anathema against them, if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the foundations, as your own Schoolmen differ. And if the Church of Rome, since she grew to her great ness, had not been so fierce in this course, and too particular in determining too many things, and making them matters of CotnHI nf'^T^ Theologian at the ^4 Bellarmin. Ub. iii. de Justif. cap. Council of Trent during the early 3. [Op., tom. iv. col. 949.] hir^ws Z\"'°- "\'^°'\ ^'°"' '" «» Andtherefore A. C needs not make his views about onginal sin.] such a noise about it, as he doth, p. 48. Of the English Church 59 necessary belief, which had gone for many hundreds of years Section before, only for things of pious opinion, Christendom, I persuade ^'^^ myself, had been in happier peace at this day, than, I doubt, we shall ever live to see it. II. Well, but A. C. win prove "the Church of England a shrew, and such a shrew. For in her Book *^ of Canons, she ex communicates every man, who shall hold anything contrary to any part of the said Articles." So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon, nor perhaps the sense. Not the words ; for they are : "Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious, or erroneous," etc. And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself; and another thing boldly and pubUcly to affirm it. And again, it is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an article, which perhaps may be but in the manner of expression ; and another thing positively to afiSrm, that the articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous. But this is not the main of the business ; for though the Church of England denounce ex communication, as is before ^'' expressed, yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome's severity, whose anathemas are not only for thirty-nine articles, but for very many more,*** above one hundred in matter of doctrine, and that in many points as far remote from the foundation ; though, to the far greater rack of men's consciences, they must be all made fundamental, if that Church have once determined them : whereas the Church of England never declared, that every one of her articles are funda mental in the faith. For it is one thing to say, No one of them is superstitious or erroneous : and quite another to say. Every one of them is fundamental, and that in every part of it, to all men's beUef Besides, the Church of England prescribes only to her own children, and by those articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those doctrines of truth. But the Church of Rome severely imposes her doctrine upon the whole world, under pain of damnation. Note from Stillingfleet's Vindication of Laud, i. 87. [' So the late learned Lord Primate of Ireland often expresseth the sense of the Church of England as to her thirty-nine Articles. *8 [Canon, v.] szcanonv. «« Concil. Trident. 6o Freedom in English Church [Chapter " Neither doth the Church of England," saith he, " define any of these ii-l questions as necessary to be believed, either necessitate medii, or necessitate prcEcepti, which is much less ; but only bindeth her sons, for peace sake, not to oppose them." And in another place more fully : " We do not suffer any man to reject the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure ; yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or legacies of Christ and His Apostles ; but in a mean, as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity ; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them." By which we see what a vast difference there is between those things which are required by the Church of England in order to peace, and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome, as part of that faith, " extra quam non est salus," without behef of which there is no salvation. In which she hath as much violated the unity of the Catholic Church as the Church of England by her pru dence and moderation hath studied to preserve it.'] [CHAPTER III. The Church of England rests on tke infallible Rock of Holy Scripture. The most important part of the whole book is to be found in the Section arguments on the authority of Scripture. It is the result of Laud's xiv. ripest thought ; the edition of 1639 consists of 388 pages ; of these no less than 47 pages are quite additional matter on this particular and crucial point. They are elaborated upon the arguments of 1624, in order to explain the position of the English Church in resting abso lutely on Holy Scripture. This, and the additional matter in Section 38 (Chapter XIV. of this edition) on the certainty of salvation in the EngUsh Church, which spreads over 46 pp., and the denial of the right of Rome to be judge in her own cause. Section 25 (Chapter VIII.), which covers 35 pp., are by far the longest additions made to the book in its present shape. Each objection is frankly met. And the controversialist does not deny the iramense difSculty of establishing his case. Only no other solution is to his mind so satisfactory as the solution he propounds. Summary of Argument. The written Scripture by itself without unwritten tradition is the foundation of faith. And from Scripture the English Church draws all the positive Articles of Faith. To Fisher's objection that the Scripture does not teach the necessity of infant baptism. Laud answers that the necessity of infant baptism is inferred from St. John iii. jy and supported by Acts ii. 38 and jg, and St. Mark x. 14. Tradition may guide and help us to see the truth of Scripture, but it cannot be the foundation of Scripture. But then, how are we to know what is Scripture ? where is the proof? Fisher pleads that the accuracy of Scripture rests upon the tradition of the Church. Laud replies that this would be to argue in a circle; for the authority of the Church rests upon scriptural proof. 62 Scripture the foundation of faith [Chapter He combines four reasons, for acknowledging the Scriptures to be of "!•] divine origin, as bringing sufficient weight if used in combination j (a) the testimony of the Church which leads us to Scripture; (b) the light from Scripture and the testimony so given by Scripture to iUelfj (c) the witness of the Holy Ghost within us; (d) the i proof provided by 7iatural reason. Of these the first argument taken by itself would make the Church superior to Scripture: the inward light of Scripture does not in practice give sufficient proof, for some books of Scripture have been honestly questioned; the third by itself would produce dangerous pride in those who felt they possessed this witness which was not given to others; as for reason, man must use it; it is a duty to use it; and it proves the truth of Scripture (i) by the confession made by the false heathen gods and (2) by the good effect of the Gospel on the nations which have received Christianity : but still human reason by itself is not large enough to tneasure divine things^] Jf. . . . and that the Scriptures only, not any unwritten tradition, was the foundation of their faith. § 15. ^. I. The Church of England grounded her positive articles upon Scripture ; and her negative do refute there, where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture, nor directly to be concluded out of it. And here, not tbe Church of England only, but all Protestants, agree most truly and most strongly in this, " That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation, and contains in it ' all things necessary to it." The Fathers ^ are plain, the School- ^ S . Basil, de vera et pia Fide. ing to Scripture only, etc. . . . He Manifesta defectio Fidei est, impor- who rejects this is Antichrist, and every tare quicquam eorum quae scripta non one who imitates him is anathema.^ sunt. [0a>'e|Oa Ikittuktis Tr/crrews Kal Op., col. 1229. F. ed. Benedict. virepT]rf>avlai Karqyopla, fj ddeTelv ti Migne, ii. 5^9'] — S- Aug. de Doc- Tuv yeypap,fiivwv, i) ireiadyetv t&v fi^ trina Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 9. [ Op. , yeypafi/xivav. It is an evident fall- tom. iii. col. 24. D. ed. Benedict. ing away from the faith and a proof Migne, iii. 42.] In iis [enim] quse of insolence, either to make of no aperte in Scripturis posita sunt, in- account any part of Scripture, or to veniuntur ilia omnia quae continent add to it anything which is not fidem, moresque vivendi. [Among the Scripture. — S. Basil, de Fide, cap. 1. points openly set forth in Scripture Op. , tom. ii. p. 224. D. ed. Bene- are to be found all those which con dict. Migne, iii. 680.] — S. Hilar, lib. tain the true faith, the right way of ii. [cap. 8.] ad Const. Aug. [vero te, living.] — And to this place Bellarmine, domine Constanti Imperator, admiror] lib. iv. de verbo Dei non scripto, fidem tantum secundum ea quae c. 11. [Op., tom. i. col. 206.] saith, scripta sunt desiderantem, etc. Hoc that St. Augustine speaks, de iUis qui repudiat Antichristus est : et qui dogmatibus quce necessaria sunt simulat, anathema est. [Truly I omnibus simpliciter [qualia sunt quje admire thee. Lord Emperor Con- habentur in Symbolo Apostolico, et stantius, claiming that faith be accord- in decalogo,] ' ' of those points of faith. Articles derived from Scripture 63 men " not strangers in it. And have not we reason then to Section account it, as it is, the foundation of our faith ? And Stapleton ^ ^^¦ himself, though an angry opposite, confesses, " that the Scripture is in some sort the foundation of faith, that is, in the nature of testimony, and in the matter or thing to be believed." And if the Scripture be the foundation to which we are to go for witness, if there be doubt about the faith, and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the faith, we never did, nor never will refuse any tradition that is universal and apostolic, for the better exposition of the Scripture ; nor any definition of the Church, in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches, and thrusts nothing as fundamental in the faith upon the world, but what tbe Scripture fundamentally makes materiam credendorum, " the substance of that which is so to be beUeved," whether immediately and expressly in words, or more remotely, till a clear and full deduction draw it out. II. Against the beginning of this paragraph, A. C. excepts. And first he says : " It is true, tbat the Churcb of England a. c. p. 48. grounded her positive articles upon Scripture ; that is, it is true, if themselves may be competent judges in their own cause." But this, by the leave of A. C. is true, without making ourselves judges in our own cause. For " that all the positive articles of the present Church of England are grounded upon Scripture," we are content to be judged by the joint and constant belief of the Fathers, which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ, when the Church was at the best ; and by the Coun cUs held within those times ; and to submit to them in all those points of doctrine. Therefore, we desire not to be judges in our which are necessary simply for all lo. in doctrina Christi et Aposto- men," [such as those which are lorum, Veritas fidei est sufficienter contained in the Apostles' Creed and explicata. [In the teaching of Christ in the Decalogue.] So far then he and the Apostles the true faith is grants the question. And that you sufficiently set forth. ] — And he speaks raay know, it fell not from him on there of the written word. the sudden, he had said as much ' Scripturam fundamentum et col- before, in the beginning of the same umnam fidei fatemur in suo genere chapter, and here he confirms it ^ain. esse, sc. in genere testimoniorum, ^Scotus. Prolog. in Sentent. et in materia credendorum. — [We Q[uiEst.]ii. [c. 14. O^., tom. V. p. 63. acknowledge the Scripture to be Scriptura sufficienter continet doc- the pillar and foundation of the trinam necessariam viatori. [The faith in its own kind, that is to Scripture contains enough of the say, in giving us the evidence, and in teacliing which is necessary for the supplyingus with the articles of faith.] wayfaring man.] — Thom. [Aquin.] — Stapleton, Relect. Con. iv. Qussst. Secund. Secund. Q[u2est.] i. A[rt.] i. Art. 3. in fine. [0/., tom. i. p. 774.] 64 Is Infant Baptism taught in Scripture [Chapter' ! own causc. And if any whom A. C. calls " a novelist " can truly "'¦' say and maintain this, he wiU quickly prove himself no noveUst. And for the negative articles, they refute, where the thing aflSrmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture, or not directly to be concluded out of it. Upon this negative ground, A. C. infers again, " That the baptism of infants is not expressly, at least not A. c. p. 49. evidentiy, affirmed in Scripture, nor directly, at least not demon stratively, concluded out of it." In which case, he " professes, he would gladly know, what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a point of faith necessary for the salvation of infants." And, in conclusion, " professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made, unless we will acknowledge authority of Church tradi tion necessary in this case." III. And truly, since A. C. is so desirous of an answer, I will give it freely. And first in the general. I am no way satisfied with A. C.'s addition — "not expressly, at least not evidently." What means he ? If he speak of the letter of the Scripture, then, whatsoever is expressly, is evidently, in the Scripture ; and so his addition is vain. If he speak of the meaning of the Scripture, then his addition is cunning ; for many things are expressly in Scripture, which yet in their meaning are not evidently there. And whatever he mean, my words are, " That our negative articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture," without any addition of " expressly " or " evidently " ; and he should have taken my words as I used them. I like nor change nor addition ; nor am I bound to either of A. C.'s making. And I am as little satisfied with his next addition — " nor directly, at least not demonstratively, concluded out of it." For are there not many things in good logic concluded directly, which yet are not con cluded demonstratively ? Surely there are. For to be directly or indirectly concluded, flows from the mood or form of the syllo gism ; to be demonstratively concluded, flows from the matter or nature of the propositions. If the propositions be prime and necessary truths, the syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical, because the propositions are such. If the propositions be pro bable only, though the syllogism be made in the clearest mood, yet is the conclusion no more. The inference or consequence, indeed, is clear and necessary ; but the consequent is but pro bable, or topical, as the propositions were. Now, my words were only for a direct conclusion, and no more : though in this case I might give A. C. his caution. For Scripture here is the thing Our Lord's words to Nicodemus 65 spoken of. And Scripture being a principle, and every text of Section Scripture confessedly a principle among all Christians, whereof ^^ no man desires * any further proof, I would fain know, why that which is plainly and apparently, that is, by direct consequence, proved out of Scripture, is not demonstratively or scientifically proved — if at least he think there can be any demonstration in divinity : and if there can be none, why did he add " demon stratively ? " IV. Next, in particular : I answer to the instance which A. C. \ a. c. p. 49. makes concerning the baptism of infants. That it may be con cluded directly (and let A. C. judge, whether not demonstratively) out of Scripture, both that infants ought to be baptized, and that baptism is necessary to their salvation. And first. That baptism is necessary to the salvation of infants, (in the ordinary way of the Church, without bmding God to the use and means of that sacrament, to which He hath bound us,)* is express in St. John iii. : " Except a man be born ag^KKi of water, and the Spirit, he ''Habitum fidei in ordine ad Theologise disciplinam se habere, ut habitus inteUectus se habet ad humanas scientias. — [A habit of faith has the same relation to the instruc tions of Theology, as a habit of inteUectual perception has to human sciences.] — M[elchior] Canus, de loci]s Theologicis,] Ub. ii. cap. 8. [cap. 56. ed. Lovan. 1569.] "St. Augustine expressly of the Baptism of infants. De peccatorum meritis et remissione. Lib. i. cap. 30. [Op., tom. X. col. 32. D.] and lib. ii. cap. 27. [col. 63. C] and Ub. i. [ad Hieronym. seu Ep. clxvi. (al. xxviii. )] [de origine anima hominis, cap. vii. 21. Op., tom. ii. par. 2. col. 591. G. Migne, ii. 729.] — Nay, they of the Roman party, which urge the baptism of infants as a matter of faith, and yet not to be concliided out of Scripture, when they are not in eager pursuit of this controversy, but look upon truth with a more indifferent eye, confess as much (even the learnedest of them) as we ask. Adyertendum autem Salvatorem, dum dicit, 'Nisi quis renatus,' etc. necessi tatem imponere omnibus, ac proinde [etiam] parvulos debere renasci ex aqua et Sphitu. [But we must listen to our Saviour when He says " except a man be born again" : He imposes the necessity on all, and therefore the L. little children also must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.] — [Com.] lansen [ii. Comment.] in [Con cord.] Evang. cap. xx. [p. 157. ed. Lovan. 1571.] So here is baptism necessary for infants, and that necessity imposed by our Saviour, and not by the Church only.— Haere tici [qui cum duo tantum faciant sacramenta, Baptismum et Eucharis- tiam, doceantque etiam baptizandos infantes, nec uUo] aUo quam hoc Scripturae testimonio probare possint, infantes esse baptizandos. [Heretics, whUe they make only two Sacraments, Baptism and the ^Eucharist, teach also that infants must be baptized, and by no other evidence than this of Scripture can prove that infants must be baptized. ] — Mald[onat. ] in S. Joann. ui. 5. So Maldonatus con fesses that the Heretics (we know whom he means) can prove the baptism of infants by no testimony of Scripture but this : which speech implies. That by this testimony of Scripture it is and can be proved, and therefore not by Church tradition only. And I would fain know;, why Bellarmine, de Baptismo, lib. i. cap. 8. sect. 5. [Op., tom. iu. col. 269. D. Porro Catholica Ecclesia semper docuit infantes baptizandos . . . Pro- batur haec Veritas tribus argumen torum generibus. Primum, sumitur 66 No Baptism, no entrance [Chapter cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So, no baptism, no I" 5 entrance. Nor can infants creep in any other ordinary way. And this is the received opinion of aU the ancient Church of Christ." And secondly, That infants ought to be baptized, is, first, plain by a scripturis : habemus autem in scripturis tria argumenta. Primum sumitur a. figura Testamenti Veteris . . . Secundum argumentum colUgitur ex duobus locis Evangelii simul junc- tis, Joann. in. 5. Nisi quis renatus, etc. ... At quod parvuli non pereant Dominus docet, Mai. xix. 14, Mar. x. 14, et Luc. xviii. 16. Sinite par vulos, etc. . . . Tertium argumentum colUgitur ex locis illis, ubi dicuntur baptizatas integrss familiae, ut Actor. xvi. 15. dicitur Lydia baptizata, et domus ejus : Again, the Catholic Church has always taught that infants must be baptized. . . . This truth is proved by three kinds of proof . . . First it is taken from Scripture ; andr- in Scripture we have three proofs. The first is taken from the antitype in the Old Testament — the second is taken from two passages of the Gospel put to^e'Cnex— John iii. 5, Except a man be born again, etc. . . . But the Lord teaches that little children are not lost — Mat. xix. 14, Mark X. 14, and Luke xviii. 16, Suffer little children, etc. . . . The third argument is derived from those places where whole families are said to have been baptized, as Acts xvi. 1 5. Lydia is said to have been baptized vrith her whole house] — should bring three arguments out of Scripture to prove the baptism of infants, (Habe mus in scripturis tria argumenta, etc.) if baptism cannot be proved at all out of Scripture, but only by the tradition ofthe Church. — And yet, this is not BeUarmine's way alone, but Suarez's in Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] Part. Tert. Q[uaest.] Ixviii. [Art. 10.] Dis- put. xxv. Sect. i. § 2. possunt] tamen. ex ilia varia argumenta sumi ad eam confirmandam, [Actor, enim xvi. legimus, etc. . . .] Nec dissimUe [argumentum sumitur ex ipsa institu - tione baptismi, et ex illis verbis Joann. iii. etc. Out of Scripture various proofs can be taken to con firm this. For in Acts xvi. we read, etc. And much the same proof is obtained from the very institution of baptism itself and from the words in John iii. etc.] — And Gregorius de Valentia, de Suscipientibus Baptis mum, — And the Pope himself. Inno cent III. [Arelatensi Archiepiscopo] Decretal, lib. iii. Tit. 42. cap. Majores. — And they all jump with S. Ambros. lib. x. Epist. 84. ad Demetriad. Virg., who expressly affirm^ it, Paedobaptismum esse constitutionem Salvatoris. And proves it out of St. John iii. 5. — [Infant Baptism is appointed by our Saviour. This epistle, ad Demetriadem, is rejected by the Benedictine editors. See Appendix to Op., tom. u. col. 477, 478. ed. Benedict. It has been variously attributed to St. Leo Magn. by his editor Quesnel ; and to St. Prosper of Aquitaine by his editor Antelmn. See S. Prosp. Aquit. Op., p. 930. ed. Paris. 171 1.] * Infantes reos esse originalis pec cati, et ideo baptizandos esse, anti- quam fidei regulam vocat S. Aug. [That infants are guilty of original sin and therefore need to be baptized is called the old rule of faith by St. Augustine. Sermo clxxiv. Migne, v. 944.] — Et, Nemo ergo vobis susur- ret doctrinas alienas. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide percepit. And again, let no one therefore whisper contraiy doctrines in your ears. This is what the Church always held, this she always kept, this she received from the faith of her elders. — S. Aug. Serm. x. [clxxvi. ed. Benedict.] cap. 2. de verbis Apost. [i Tim. i. Fidelis sermo et omni acceptione, etc. Op. , tom. V. col. 840. A. Migne, V, 950.]— And [Pseudo-] S. Ambros. lib. X. Epist. 84. — And S. Chrysos tom. Homil. de Adam et Eva. [The foUovring passage may perhaps be that referred to in this vague citation. — S. Chrysostom. in Genesim, Sermo vii. cap. 5. Op., tom. iv. p. 68 1 . C. ]— Hoc praedicat Ecclesia CathoUca ubique diffusa. [This the Church teaches, wherever she goes. — Concil. Mi levit. Canon ii. ConcU. tom. ii. col. 1538. C] Some Roman writers agree to this 67 evident and direct consequence out of Scripture. For if there be Section no salvation for infants in the ordinary way of the Church, but ^^^ by baptism, and this appear in Scripture, as it doth, then out of all doubt, the consequence is most evident out of that Scripture, That infants are to be baptized, that their salvation may be certain. For they which cannot help themselves,' must not be left only to extraordinary helps ; of which we have no assurance, and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture ; while we, in the meantime, neglect the ordinary way and means com manded by Christ. Secondly, it is very near an expression in Scripture itself For when St. Peter had ended that great sermon of his, he applies two comforts unto them, "Amend your lives, Acts ii. 38,39. and be baptized, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And then, he infers, " For the promise is made to you, and to your children." The promise! what promise? What? Why, the promise of sanctification by the Holy Ghost. By what means ? Why, by baptism : for it is expressly, " Be baptized, and ye shall receive"; and as expressly, "This promise is made to you, and your children." And therefore A. C. may find it, if he will. That the baptism of infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture. For some of his own party, Ferus* and Salmeron,* could both find it there. And so, if it will do him any pleasure, he hath my answer, which, he saith, "he would be glad to know." ' [Commendaverim caritati vestrae] ° [Salmeron was one of the original causam eorum, qui pro se loqui non band of Jesuits who joined with possunt. I would have commended Ignatius in founding the Order, on to your charity the cause of those who Ascension Day, 1534.] cannot speak for themselves. — S. [ Vobis enim est repromissio, et filiis Augustin. Serm. viu. cap. 8. de verb. vestris,] . . . Etad filios vestros, [quos Apost. Migne, v. 944.] multum juvat parentum fides, sicut '[Ferus wrote a commentary on St. nocet infidelitas:] quare debent con- John, pubUshed in 1536, etc. ; his real sentire, cum ad usum rationis perve- name was WUd.] niunt, ad implenda promissa in Nullum excipiens, [non marem, Baptismo. ["The promise is to you non foeminam, non servum, non libe- and to your children." To your mm,] non Judaeum, non Gentilem, children who are much helped by nec adultum, nec puerum, [et omni- their parents' faith, and much hurt if bus indicat esse necessarium baptisma. they are faithless ; wherefore the None is excepted, male or female, children ought to agree when they bond nor free, Jew nor Gentile, come to the age of discretion to fulfil neither adult nor chUd ; and to all he the promises made for them in declares that baptism is needful for Baptism.]— Salmeron. Tractat. xiv. them.— Reverendi patris D. Joannis] in loc. [sc. Act. ii. 39. Comment. Feri, etc. [Enarrationes in Acta Apos- tom. xii. pp. 87, 88. ed. Colon. tolor.]-\n Act. ii. 39. [p. 28. Coloniae, 1614.] 1567.] 68 Infant Baptism is a Tradition also (Chapter V. It is true, BeUarmine i" presses a main place out of St. '"•' Augustine, and he urges it hard. St. Augustine's words are, "The custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is by no means to be contemned, or thought superfluous ; nor yet at aU to be beUeved, unless it were an apostoUcal tradition." " The place is truly cited, but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is. For, first, it is not denied, that this is an apostolical tradition, and therefore to be believed. But, secondly, not therefore only. Nor doth St. Augustine say so, nor doth Bellarmine press it that way. The truth is, it would have been somewhat difficult to find the collection out of Scripture only for the baptism of infants, since they do not actually believe. And therefore St. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi, that this custom of the Church had not been to be believed, had it not been an apostolical tradition. But the tradition being apostolical, led on the Church easily to see the necessary deduction out of Scripture. And this is not the least use of tradition, to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture, though not obvious to every eye there. And that this is St. Augustine's meaning is manifest by himself, who best knew it. For when he had said, as he doth,i2 That to baptize children is antiqua fidei regula, " the ancient rule of faith," and " the constant tenet of the Church," yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also. fFor when Pelagius urged, that infants needed not to be baptized, /^because they had no original sin, St. Augustine relies not upon the tenet of the Church only, but argues from the text thus : " What Matt.i.x.[i2i. need have infants of Christ if they be not sick ? ' For the sound need not the physician.' " ^^ And again, " Is not this said by '" Bellarmin. de verbo Dei [non tenuit. [This the Church always scripto^ lib. iv. cap. 9. § 3. [Op., tom. held, and to this she always kept.] — i. col. 193. B.] /rf. ^w-m.x. [clxxvi.] cap. 2. [See note "S. Aug. [de] Gen[esi,] ad Lit. 6.] [lib. X.] cap. 23. [Op., tom. iii. par. ^^[Quoniam (Matth. ix. 12.) non 1. col. 272. D. Migne, in. 426. est opus sanis medicus, sed a^rotanti- Consuetudo [tamen] Matris Ecclesiae bus,] quid necessarium [ergo] habuit in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam infans Christum, si non aegrotat ? [Si spernenda est, [neque uUo modo super- sanus est, quare per eos qui eum dili- fluadeputanda,] nec omnino credenda, gunt, medicum quaerit? Since the nisi Apostolica esset traditio. whole have no need of a physician, ^^ Quare [novis disputationibus] an- but the sick, what need had the tiquam fidei regulam frangere conaris? infant of Christ if he were not sick ? [Why do you try to break the ancient If he is whole, why does he look fora rule of faith with new arguments ?] — physician by the act of them who love S. Aug. Serm. viu. [clxxiv.] de verb. him ?— S. Aug. Serm. clxxvi. See note Apost. cap. 8. [See note 7.]— Hoc 6.]— Quid est quod dicis, nisi ut non Ecclesia semper [habuit, semper] accedant ad Jesum ? Sed tibi clamat It is an Apostolical Tradition 69 Pelagius, ut non accedant ad Jesum ? ' that infants may not come Section to their Saviour ' ? Sed clamat Jesus, 'but Jesus cries out,' ' Suffer •''^• little ones to come unto Me.' " And all this is fully acknowledged Mark x. 14. by Calvin,^* namely, "That all men acknowledge the baptism of infants to descend from apostolical tradition." And yet that "it doth not depend upon the bare and naked authority of the Church."!' Which he speaks not in regard of tradition, but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary consequence out of Scripture over and above tradition. VI. As for tradition, I have said enough for that,i^ and as much as A. C. where it is truly apostoUcal. And yet if anything \. c. p. 49- will please him, I will add this concerning this particular, the baptizing of infants, that the Church received this by tradition from the Apostles." By tradition. And what then ? May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture, because it was delivered to the Church by way of tradition ? I hope A. C. will never say so. | For certainly in doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a tradition apostolical as that which hath a root and a foundation in Scripture. ^^ Jesus, Sine parvulos venire ad Me. [What are you saying but that they are not to come to Jesus ? But Jesus calls to you, Suffer the Uttle children to come unto Me.] — S. Augustin. [Serm. clxxiv. See note 6.] " Nullus est scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad apostolorum seculum pro certo referat. [There is no writer, however old, who does not place the origin of infant baptism back in the age of the Apostles, as a certain truth.] — Calvin. Iiistit. lib. iv. cap. 16. §8. [Op., tom. viu. p. 357. col. I.] '"[Aiunt paedobaptismum non tam ex aperto scripturae mandato, quam ex ecclesiae decreto emanasse. At] miserrimum asylum foret, si pro defen sione paedobaptismi ad nudam eccle siae auctoritatem suffugere cogeremur. [They say that the custom of the Baptism of children was derived not so much from the plain command of Scripture, as from the decree of the Church. But it would be a most wretched protection, if for the defence of the Baptism of children we were obliged to take refuge in the bare authority of the Church.] — Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 8. § 16. [Op., tom. viii. p. 311. col. 2.] ^' [Vide sup.] sect. xv. i. ^' Origen. in Rom. vi. 6. tom. ii. p. 543. Pro hoc [et] ecclesia ab apos tolis traditionem suscepit, etiam par vulis baptismum dare. [For this reason the Church received from the Apostles a traditional command to give baptism to little children also.] — [Comment, in Rom. lib. V. cap. 9. Op., tom. iv. p. 565. A. col. 2. ed. Benedict. Migne, iv. 1047.] — Et S. Aug. Serm. x. [clxxvi.] de verb. Apost. cap. 2. [Migne, v. 944. See note 6.] Hoc ecclesia a majorum fide percepit. [The Church received this from the faith of the ancients] — And it is to be observed that neither of these Fathers (nor I beUeve any other) says that the Church received it "^ traditione sola," by tradition only ; or " a majorum fide sola," or from the faith of the elders only, as if tradition did exclude col lection of it out of Scripture. ^' Yea, and Bellarmine himself avers, De verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. X. § 7 : Sic etiam omnes traditiones continentur in scriptis in universaU. [So also, all the traditions are contained in Scripture in a gene ral way.] — Op., tom. i. col. 196. C] And St. Basil, Serm. defide, approves only those Agrapha, quae non sunt aliena a pia secundum Scripturam sententia. [Unwritten doctrines, which 70 How do we know what is Scripture? [Chaptkr For Aposties cannot write or deliver contrary, but subordinate '"•1 and subservient, things. Jf. I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture, and in particular Genesis, Exodus, etc. These are believed to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any place, of Scripture. The §. said, that the books of Scripture are principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved. § i6. /^. I. I did never love too curious a search into that which ^ight put a man into a wheel, and circle him so long between /proving Scripture by tradition, and tradition by Scripture, tiU the / devil find a means to dispute him into infidelity, and make him ' believe neither. I hope this is no part of your meaning. Yet I doubt this question, " How do you know Scripture to be Scrip- / ture ? " 1* hath done more harm, than you will be ever able to help by tradition. But I must follow that way which you draw me. And because it is so much insisted upon by you,^" and is in itself a matter of such consequence, I will sift it a little further. are not contrary to a pious judgment resting on Scripture.] — S.Basil. Serm. de fide, cap. 1. Op., tom. ii. p. 224. B. ed. Benedict. Migne, iii. 677.] IS Volentes destruere fidem nostram, per occasionem unius aut alterius quaestionis aut difficilis, aut forte et indissolubilis, [adversantes scripturis] festinant fidem [Christi et Evangeli orum ejus] toUere [de anima nostra. Those who wish to destroy our faith by using the opportunity offered by some special question, which is either difficult or perhaps even insoluble, and who, opposing the teaching of Scripture, are in a hurry to deprive our souls of faith in Christ and His Gospels.] — Origen. Q. [i.e. Tractat.] xxxv. in Matth. [Erasmo interpret. tom. ii. p. 231. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1545. et in Matth. Comment. Ser. 134. Op., tom. iii. p. 923. D. ed. Benedict. Migne, ui. 1782.] ™"To know that Scriptures are divine and infallible in every part, is a foundation so necessary, as if it be doubtfully questioned, all the faith built upon Scripture falls to the ground." A. C. p. 47. — Quarto, necesse est nosse, extare libros aliquos vere divinos, [quod certe nullo modo ex Scripturis haberi potest. Nam etiamsi Scriptura dicat, libros pro- phetarum et apostolorum esse divinos, tamen non certo id credam, nisi prius credidero, Scripturam, quae hoc dicit, esse divinam. In the fourth place it is necessary we should know that there are in existence some divinely-inspired books and that certainly cannot be got out of Scripture. For although Scripture should say that the books of the prophets and apostles are divinely inspired, I certainly should not beUeve that statement until I first believed that the Scripture, which declares this, is itself divinely inspired. — Bel larm. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 4. § 15. [Op., tom. i. col. 175. B.] — Sexto, oportet etiam [non solum scire qui sint libri sacri, sed etiam in particulari] istos, qui sunt in manibus, esse illos. [Non enim satis est credere Evangelium Marci esse verum, Evangelium Thomae non esse verum, sed oportet etiam credere, hoc evangelium, quod nunc legitur sub nomine Marci, esse illud verum et incorruptum quod scripsit Marcus, quod certo ex Scripturis haberi non potest. Sixthly, we ought also to know not only which are the divinely- Not by Tradition simply 71 II. Many men labouring to settle this great principle in Section divinity, have used divers means to prove it. AU have not gone '^^''• the same way, nor all the right way. You cannot be right, that resolve " faith of the Scriptures," being the " word of God," into " only tradition." For "only," and " no other " proof are equal. To prove the Scripture, therefore (so called by way of excellence), to be the word of God, there are several offers at divers proofs. For first, some fly to the testimony and witness of the Church,, and her tradition, which constantly believes, and unanimously 1 delivers it. Secondly, some to the light and the testimony which ] the Scripture gives to itself ; with other internal proofs which are observed in it, and to be found in no other writing whatsoever.] Thirdly, some to the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which clearsi up the Ught that is in Scripture, and seals tbis faith to the souls of men, that it is God's word. Fourthly, all that have not imbrutished themselves, and sunk below their species and order of nature, give even natural reason leave to come in, and make some proof, and give some approbation upon tbe weighing and the consideration of other arguments. And this must be admitted, if it be but for pagans and infidels, who either consider not or value not any one of the other three : yet must some way or other Rom. i. m be converted, or " left without excuse " ; and that is done by this very evidence. III. For the first : the " tradition of the Church," which is your way. That taken and considered alone, it is so far from being the only, that it cannot be a sufficient, proof to believe by divine faith, that Scripture is the word of God. For that which is a full and sufficient proof, is able of itself to settle the soul of man concerning it. Now, the tradition of the Church is not able to do this. For it may be further asked. Why we should beUeve the Church's tradition ? And if it be answered, We may believe, because the Church is infaUibly governed by the Holy Ghost ; it may yet be demanded of you. How that may appear ? And if this be demanded, either you must say, you have it by special revelation, which is the " private spirit " you object to other men. inspired books, but also definitely Gospel which now goes by the name that these same books are still in our of St. Mark is that same Gospel hands. For it is not enough to believe which St. Mark wrote and true and that the Gospel of St. Mark is true, uncorrupted; and this certainly can- and the Gospel of St. Thomas is not not be got from Scnptuie.]— [Ibid. trae; we also ought to believe that the col. 175. D.] 72 Scripture higher than Church Tradition [Chapter or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture, ^^ as all of you "'¦' do. And that very offer, to prove it out of Scripture, is a suificient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher proof than the Church's tradition, whicb, in your own grounds, is or may be questionable tiU you come thither. Besides, this is an inviolable ground of reason : " That the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit than the conclusion itself." ^^ Therefore if the Articles of faith, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the rest, be the conclusions, and the principles by which they are proved be only ecclesiastical tradition, it must needs follow, that the tradition of the Church is more infalUble than the articles of the faith, 'if the faith which we have of the articles should be finaUy resolved into tbe veracity of the Church's testimony. But this your learned and wary men deny,^^ and therefore I hope yourself dare not affirm. IV. Again, if the voice of the Church, saying the books of Scripture commonly received are the Word of God, be the formal object of faith, upon which alone absolutely I may resolve myself; then every man not only may, but ought to, resolve his faith into the voice or tradition of the Church : for every man is bound to ^' Esse aliquas veras traditiones de- etirep lafiev Sid t4 irpHra Kal iruTTeiopxv, monstratur ex Scripturis. [Scripture Kq.KeZva (a-piev Te Kal iriffTetio/iev /idXXov, proves that there are some true Sti Sl' iKeiva Kal Td iisTepov. It is traditions. ] — Bellar. de verbo Dei non obUgatory not only to begin by know- scripto, lib. iv. cap. 5. [See Johannis ing the first things, all or some of xvi. 12. Multa habeo, etc. I have them, but also by knowing them more many things to say to you. 'Kt Johan. thoroughly — for the thing on the xxi. 25. Sunt autem et alia multa, strength of which something is estab- etc. There are many other things. — Ushed, is itself thoroughly established ; Op., tom. i. col. 177. D.] And A. C. as for instance love is proved more p. 50. proves " tradition " out of thoroughly by the fact that we love. 3 Thess. U. [15.] Therefore since we know and believe ^Aristot. Post. [Analyt. lib.] i. cap. because of the first things, we know 2. T. 16. per Pacium. Quocirca si and believe those first things more Sid Td irpCna, propter prima scimus et thoroughly, because on the strength credimus, ilia quoque scimus et ere- of them we believe also the last things. dimus, pidXXov, magis, quia per Ula — Op., tom. i. p. 185. ed. Bekker. scimus et credimus etiam posteriora. Oxon. 1837.] [Wherefore if 5ia Td irpSra, "on the '•''Eorum [hic] errorem dissimulare evidence of the first things " we know non possum, qui asserunt, fidem and believe others, we certainly know nostram eo, tanquam in ultimam and believe those first things (fiaXXov) credendi causam, reducendam esse, more thoroughly, because it is on ut credamus ecclesiam esse veracem. their authority that we know and I cannot deny the error of them who believe also the fiirther things. assert that our faith has to be reduced, ['AviyKTi, fii) fidvov irpoyiviia-Keiv rd as to a final reason for belief, to this irpCiTa, ^ irdvTa Ij Ivia, dXXd Kal point, that we beUeve in the truthfiil- tidXXoV del ydp, Si' S iirdpxei feacrroy, ness of the Church.— Melch. Can[us,] iKelvo ixaXXov virdpxef orov. Si' 6 de locis Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. [p. C>v, their doctrine making the sayd Spirit t^s re XeyopievTjs iraXaia^ Siad-qKrjt, the sole grounde and meanes of their Kal ttjs KaXovfiivijs Kaivrjs, Xbyip Te beUefe is confuted . . . The Second ireipiifieSa KpaTiveiv rip,C>v ttjv ttIcttiv. Part which is doctrinal. Written There is evidence derived from the by J. S. of the Society of Jesus. Scriptures which have been entrusted Permissu superiorum mdcxxx." Its to us as divine, both from the Old author was J. Sergeant; and in a and from the New Testament, and Preface he explains how " this we try to strengthen our belief by Second Part gets birth and breath, reason.] and comes to light before the first"] ^i Cor. xii. 3, 4. Datur nobis a "Ut testimonia Scripturae certam Deo, etc. [It is given to us by God. ] et indubitatam fidem praestent, neces- — S. Augustin, [Enarr.] in Psalm. sarium videtur ostendere, quod ipsae Ixxxvii. [Op. , tom. iv. col. 932. F. ed. Divinae Scripture sint Dei Spiritu Benedict. Migne, iv. 11 16.] inspirataa. [In order that the evidence *' [Sed hoc est falsum], quia [cuni] given by Scripture may procure us a homo, assentiendo his qu« sunt fidei, sure and unhesitating faith, it seems elevetur sujjra naturam suam, oportet necessary to show that the Holy quod hoc insit ei ex supematurali Scriptures are themselves inspired by principio interius movente, quod est 84 [Chapter III.] Private Revelation respect whereof the soul is merely recipient ; and therefore the sole infuser the Holy Ghost, must not be excluded from that work, which none can do but He. For the Holy Ghost, as He first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles,^* so did He not leave the Church in general, nor the true members of it in particular, without grace to beUeve what Himself had revealed and made credible.^^ So that faith, as it is taken for the virtue of faith, whether it be of this or any other article, though " it receive a kind of preparation, or occasion of beginning, from the testimony of the Church, as it proposeth and induceth to the faith ; yet it ends in God, revealing within, and teaching within, that which the Church preached without."*^ For till the Spirit of God move Deus : [But this is false, because, when a man, by assenting to those things which are of faith, is raised -< above his human nature, it is certain that this act of assent is caused by a supernatural principle moving within, which is God.] — Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] vi. A[rt] I. [in respons.] — And your own divines agree in this, thz-t fides acqmsita is not sufiicient for any article, but there must be fides infusa, before there can be divine certainty. [Nec verus catholicus, quod nonnulU fingunt, assentitur huic, Ecclesia est verax, solum per] conjecturas humanas, acquisita fides innititur. Ad quem modum et Saraceni suis praecep- toribus, et Judaei suis rabbinis, et Gentes suis philosophis, et omnes [denique] suis majoribus inhserent Non sic, [inquam,] Christiani ; sed per interius lumen infusum a Spiritu Sancto, quo firmisSime et certissime moventur ad credendum, [ecclesiam Christianam errare non posse. Nor does a real Catholic, as some pretend, agree to this, "The Church is true," only by human guesses, on which he rests his acquired faith. In this way, the Saracens agree with their teachers, the Jews with their Rabbis, the Gentiles with their philosophers, and all with their predecessors. It is not so with Christians ; they depend upon an inward Ught shed upon them by the Holy Spirit which most firmly and most surely moves them to believe that the Christian Church cannot err. — Melchior] Canus, de loc. Theolog. Ub. ii. cap. 8. § Jam si haec, [p. 59.] "Symbol. Nicen. "The Holy Ghost, [Who] spake by the prophets," etc. — Et T Pet. ii. 21. — [Tu itaque, regnator creaturae tuae,] quis est modus, quo doces animas ea quae futura sunt? Docuisti enim prophetas Tuos. [And Thou also. Ruler of Thy creation, what is the means by which Thou teachest souls the things that shall be ? For Thou has taught Thy prophets.] — S. Augustin. Confess. lib. xi. cap. 19. [Op., tom. i. col. 203. D.] ^^Nec cum ecclesiae testimonium aut judicium praedicamus, Dei Spiritum, vel ab ecclesia docente, vel a nobis audientibus, excludimus. Sed utro- bique diserte includimus, etc. — [When we speak of the witness and decision of the Church, we do not exclude the Spirit of God whether from the Church which is the Teacher, or members who are the Scholars ; but in every case we expressly include Him.] — Stapelton. Triplicatio ad versus Whitakerum, [pro ecclesia auctoritate,] cap. iii. [Op., tom. i. p. 1142. C.] ^^ Fides quae coepit ab ecclesiae testimonio, quatenus proponit et inducit ad fidem, desinit in Deo intus revelante et intus docente quod foris ecclesia praedicavit [A faith which begins with the witness of the Church, as far as it teaches and leads on to faith, ends in God Who makes an inward revelation, and teaches to the heart what the Church taught to the ears.] — Stajjleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] iv. [de potestat. Eccl. in se, Q[u3est.] iu. A[rt.] 2. [respons. Cannot be accepted as enough 85 the heart of man, he cannot beUeve, be the object never so I Section credible. The speech is true then, but quite out of the state of ^^'• this question :^^ which inquires only after a sufficient means to make this object credible and fit to be believed, against all impeachment of folly and temerity in belief, whether men do actually believe it or not. For which no man may expect inward private revelation without the external means of the Church, unless perhaps the " case of necessity "^* be excepted when a man lives in such a time and place as excludes him from all ordinary means : in which I dare not off'er to shut up God from the souls of men, nor to tie Him to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great wisdom and providence He hath tied and bound aU mankind. XII. Private revelation, then, hath nothing ordinarily to do, to make the object credible in this, That Scripture is the word of God or in any other article. For the question is of such outward and evident means, as other men may take notice of, as well as ourselves. By which, if there arise any doubting or infirmity in the faith, others may strengthen us, or we afford means to support them : whereas the testimony of the Spirit, and all private revela tion is within, nor felt nor seen of any but bim that hath it.*^ So ad argum. haeret. Op., tom. i. p. beginning is made, since it is imparted 755- A.] — ["Neither can I think by God immediately, entirely, and that] when grave and learned men do out of His grace, that is not our sometime hold, that of this principle subject here, except in so far as we there is no proof but by the testimony can achieve it by an examination of of the Spirit, [which assureth our Scripture.] — Henr. a Gand. Summ. hearts therein,] it is their meaning to [part, i.] A[rt.] x. Q[usest.] I. D. exclude [utterly] all force [which any [§ 7. tom. i. p. 182.] kind] of reason may have in that ^Stapleton. Relect. Controv. iv. behalf; but [I] rather [incline to Quaest. Ui. Art U. [Op., tom. i. p. inteipret such their speeches, as if 755. A. B., ubi sup. note 56.] doth they had more expressly set down,] not only afiirm it, but proves it too, that other motives and inducements, a paritaterationis, in caseolnecessity, [he they never so strong and consonant where there is no contempt of the with reason,] are [notwithstanding] external means. unefiFectual of themselves to work ''Quid cum singulis agatur, Deus feith [conceming this principle], if seit qui agit, atque ipsi, cum quibus the special grace of the Holy Spirit agitur, sciunt Quid autem agatur concur not [to the enlightening of our cum genere humano, per historiam minds. "] — Hooker, [Eccl. Polit. ] book commendari voluit, et per prophetiam. iii. ch. viii. [sect. 15. IVorks, vol i. [How individuals are affected, God p. 377, ed. Church and Paget. knows who affects them and they "De habitu fidei quoad fieri ejus et themselves who are affected. How generationem, quum a Deo immediate the human race is affected can be solo dono gratuito infiisus est, nihil understood by history and by ad quEstionem, nisi quoad hoc quod prophecy.] — S. Augustin. de vera per Scripturae inspectionem, etc. [As Relig. cap. xxv. [Op., tom. i. tothe character of faith and how its col. 763. D.] 86 Can reason prove Scripture [Chapter that hence can be drawn no proof to others. And miracles are not '"•' sufficient alone to prove it, unless both they, and the revelation Gal. i. 8. too, agree with the rule of Scripture, which is now an unalterable A. c. p. s=. rule by man or angel. To all this A. C. says nothing save, " that I seem not to admit of an infallible impulsion of a private Spirit, ex parte subjedi, without any infallible reason, and that sufficiently applied, ex parte objecti, which if I did admit, would open a gap to all enthusiasms, and dreams of fanatical men." Now for this yet I thank him. For I do not only " seem not to admit," but I do most clearly reject, this frenzy in the words going before. XIII. 4. The last way, which gives reason leave to come in, and prove what it can,^" may not justly be denied by any reason able man. For though reason without grace cannot see the way to heaven, nor believe this book, in whicb God hath written the way ; yet grace is never placed but in a reasonable creature, and proves by tbe very seat which it hath taken up, that the end it hath is to be spiritual eye-water, to make reason see what by " nature only it cannot," ^^ but never to blemish reason in that which it can, " comprehend." Now the use of reason is very general ; and man, do what he can, is still apt to search and seek for a reason why he will believe ; though, after he once believes, his faith grows stronger than either bis reason or his knowledge ; ^''¦ ™ Utitur tamen sacra doctrina in Deum procedens. [The invisible [etiam] ratione humana, non quidem secrets of God, in the majority of ad probandum fidem ipsam, [quia per cases are understood in a loftier hoc toUeretur meritum fidei,] sed ad fashion by faith, than by natural manifestandum aliqua alia, quae tra- reason climbing up to God through His duntur in bac doctrina. [The sacred creatures. ] — Thom. [Aquin. ] Secund. teaching however makes use of Secund. Q[uaest.] ii. A[rt. 3. respons.] human reason, not indeed to prove ad Tertium. [Migne, Ui. 31.] faith itself, for in this way the merit '¦^Animalis homo non percipit. [The of faith would be done away, but to natural man does not perceive.] — / make clear certain other points which Cor. u. 14. are delivered in its teaching.] — Thom. ^^ Quia [alias] scientiae certitudinem [Aquin. Summ.] par. i. Q[uaest.] i. habent ex naturaU lumine rationis A[rt.] 8. ad Secundum. [Migne, i. humanae, quse potest errare : [haec 467-] — Passibus rationis novus homo autem. sc] Theologia, certitudinem tendit in Deum. [By the steps of habet ex lumine divinae scientiae, quK reason the new man goes towards decipi non potest. [Because they God.] — [inquit] S. Augustin. de vera attain the certainty of other know- Relig. cap. xxvi. [Op., tom. i. col. ledge by the natural light of reason 764. F.J passibus, verum est, sed nec which can be mistaken; but Theology jequis, nec solis. [By its steps it is (which teaches both the object and the true, yet neither equal steps, nor knowledge of faith), as weU as faith without help.] Invisibilia Dei altiori itself, gains its certainty by the light modo, quantum ad plura, percipit of divine knowledge which cannot be fides, quam ratio naturalis ex creaturis mistaken.]— Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] To be the Word of God ? 87 and great reason for this, because it goes higher, and so upon a safer principle, than either of the other can in this life. XIV. In this particular the books called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to be the word of God, and so infaUible verity to the least point of them. Doth any man doubt this ? The world cannot keep him from going to weigh it at the balance of reason, whether it be the word of God or not. To the same weights he brings the tradition of the Church, the inward motives in Scripture itself, all testimonies within, which seem to bear witness to it ; and in all this there is no harm : the danger is when a man will use no other scale but reason, or prefer reason^ before any other scale. For the word of God, and the book con-^ taining it, refuse not to be weighed by reason. ^^ But the scale is not large enough to contain, nor the weights to measure out, the Section XVI. par. I. Q[uffist] i. A[rt.] 5. [in respons. Migne, i. 462.] — Ut, ipsa fide valentiores fecti, quod credimus inteUigere mereamur, [non jam homi nibus, sed ipso Deo intrinsecus mentem nostram Uluminante atque firmante? So that, made stronger by faith itself, we may deserve to understand what we believe : not now by the agency of man, but by God Himself inwardly iUuminating and strengthening our minds.] — S. Augus tin. contra Epistolam Manichai, qua-m vocant Fundamenti, cap. xiv. [Op., tom. viii. col. 160. D.] — Hoc autem ita intelligendum est, ut scientia certior sit certitudine evi- dentiae ; fides vero certior firmitate adhaesionis. Majus lumen in scientia, majus robur in fide : et hoc, quia in fide, et ad fidem actus imperatus voluntatis concurrit. Credere enim est actus inteUectus vero assentientis productus [procedens] ex voluntatis imperio. [But this must be understood in this way, that knowledge can grow stronger by the certainty of the evi dence fiirnished, but faith grows stronger by the strength of our ad herence to it. In knowledge more light; in faith more strength. And this happens because in faith and towards faith a commanded act of the will concurs to give help. For to believe is the act of the intellect truly assenting, and this is produced by the force of the will. — Gabr.] Biel. in III. Sentent. Distinct, xxiii. Quaest. ii. Art. I. [These are not, except in portions, the exact words of Gabriel Biel, but rather an account of his whole argument] — Unde Thom. [Aquin. inquit.] InteUectus credentis determinatur ad unum, non per rationem, sed per voluntatem ; et ideo assensus hic accipitur pro actu intel- lectus, secundum quod a voluntate determinatur ad unum. [Wherefore Thomas Aquinas says : " the intellect of the believer is set in harmony, not by the reason but by the will : and therefore this assent is accepted as an act of the intellect, because it is set in harmony by the will. ] — Secund. Secund. Q[usest.] u. A[rt.] i. [Migne, iii. 29.] ^Si vobis, rationi et veritati con- sentanea videntur, in pretio habete, etc. , de mysteriis religionis. [If they seem to you agreeable to the reason and to truth, prize them highly, etc. ; I speak of the mysteries of religion.] — Justin. Martyr. [Apolog. Prim, cap.] ii. [These words do not seem to be an exact translation of Justin Martyr, but an account of the general argu ment of the exordium of his first Apology.] — Igitur, si fuit dispositio rationis. [Therefore if there was an inclination of the reason.] — TertuU. lib. de Carne Christi, cap. xviii. C. [Op., p. 321. ed. Rigalt Migne, u. 783.] — Rationabile est credere Deum esse autorem Scripturae. [It is reason able to believe that God is the author of revelation.] — Henr. aGand. Summ. tom. i. Art. ix. Q[usest.] 3. 88 Reason a valuable agent [Chapter true virtue and fuU force of either. Reason, then, can give no "'•^ supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his faith. That Scripture is the word of God infallibly : yet Reason can go so high, as it can prove that Christian religion, which rests upon the authority of this book, stands upon surer grounds of nature, reason, common equity, and justice, than anything in the world which any infidel or mere naturalist hath done, doth or can adhere unto, against it, in that which he makes, accounts, or assumes as religion to himself. XV. The ancient Fathers relied upon the Scriptures, no Christians more : and, having to do with philosophers (men very well seen in all the subtilties which natural reason could teach or learn), they were often put to it, and did as often make it good, that they had sufficient warrant to rely, so much as they did, upon Scripture. In all which disputes, because they were to deal with infidels, they did labour to make good the authority of the book of God by such arguments as unbelievers themselves could not but think reasonable, if they weighed them with indiffer- ency. For though I set the mysteries of faith above reason, which is their proper place ; yet I would have no man think they contradict reason, or the principles thereof No sure : for reason by her own light can discover how firmly the principles of religion •, are true ; but all the light she hath will never be able to find them false. Nor may any man think that the principles of religion, even this, That Scriptures are the word of God, are so indifferent to a natural eye, that it may with as just cause lean to one part of the contradiction as to the other. For though this truth. That Scripture is the word of God, is not so demonstratively evident a priori, as to enforce assent ; yet it is strengthened so abundantly with probable arguments, both from the light of nature itself and human testimony, that he must be very wilful and self-conceited that shall dare to suspect it. XVI. Nay, yet further,'* It is not altogether impossible to prove it, even by reason, a truth infallible, or else to make them ^^ Hooker, [Eccl. Polit.] hook. in. may be proved a truth infallible. In ch. viu. [sect. 14. fVorks,-vol. i. pp. 376, which case the ancient Fathers being 377,ed. Church and Paget. "If infidels often constrained to shew, what war- or atheists chance at any time to call it rant they had so much to rely upon in question, this giveth us occasion to the Scripture, endeavoured stiU to sift what reason there is, whereby the maintain the authority of the books of testimony of the Church concerning God by arguments such as unbelievers Scripture, and our own persuasion themselves must needs think reason- which Scripture itself hath confirmed, able, if they judged thereof as they In such proof about Scripture 89 deny some apparent principle of their own. For example : It is Section an apparent principle, and with them. That God, or the absolute -''^'• prime agent, cannot be forced out of any possession ; for if He could be forced by another greater, He were neither prince, nor absolute, nor God,®^ in their own theology. Now they must grant, That that God and Christ, which the Scripture teaches, and we believe, is the only true God, and no other with Him, and so deny the Deity which they worshipped, or else deny their own principles about the Deity, That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession. For '^ " their gods, Saturn, and Serapis, and Jupiter himself, have been adjured by the name of the true and only God, and have been forced out of the bodies they possessed, and confessed themselves to be foul and seducing devils; and their confession was to be supposed true in point of reason ; for they that were adored as gods, would never belie themselves into devils, to their own reproach, especially in tbe presence of them that worshipped them, were they not forced." This many of the unbelievers saw : therefore they could not, in very force of reason, but they must either deny their God, or deny their principle in nature. Their long custom would not forsake should. Neither is it a thing impos- things. — Cic. de Leg. [lib.] u. sible, or greatly hard, even by such [cap. 7.] kind of proofs so to manifest and clear "* Ipse Saturnus, et Serapis, et that pomt, that no man living shall be Jupiter, et quicquid Daemonum colitis, able to deny it, without denying some victi dolore, quod sunt, eloquuntur. apparent principle such as all men Nec utique in turpitudinem sui, non- acknowledge to be true."] — Si [enim] nullis praesertim vestrorum assistenti- Plato ipse viveret, et me interrogantem bus, mentiuntur. Ipsis testibus esse non aspemaretur, [vel potius, si quis eos Daemonas de se verum confitenti- ejus discipulus, eo ipso tempore quo bus credite. Adjurati enim per Deum vivebat, eum interrogaret, etc. If verum et solum, inviti, [miseri, cor- Plato himself were alive, and did not poribus inhorrescunt — Great Saturn despise my questions; or rather if and Serapis and Jupiter and all the some disciple of his, what time he rest of the Daemons you worship con- was alive, should ask him.] — S. fess what they are— conquered by Augustin. de vera Relig. cap. iu. suffering. Nor do they lie about [0/., tom. i. col. 748. C] — Ibid. ca.p. their own base condition; at such xxix. [col. 766. A.] confessions some of your own friends ^ Si vim spectes, Deus valentissimus have actually been present. Trust est. If you look to force, God is the their own evidence that they are strongest of all. Aristot. de Mundo, Daemons, for they themselves confess cap. vii. [TavTa ¦xpij Kal irepl 6eoS this is true. For when they are Siavoe-urOai, Swdpiei /iiv Svtos laxupo- adjured by the true and only God, in riTov, KdX\ei Si eiirpeireaTdTov, k.t.X. unwillingmiserytheir bodies shudder.] [It is important also to understand — Arnob. viu. contra Gent.; or Minu- these points about God; He is strongest tins Felix, asis now thought : [sc. in in power. He is the most noble in Dialogo Min. Fel. qui inscribitur beauty.— 0/., tom. ui. p. 152. ed. O^rtowW, cap. viii. p. 253. ed. Lugd. Bekker.]— Domini et Moder^tores Bat. 1672. This was a very favourite omnium. Lords and masters of aU argument of the early Apologists.] 90 The admirable faculty of Reason [Chapter III.] their God, and their reason could not forget their principle. If reason therefore might judge among them, they could not worship anything that was under command. And if it be reasonable to do and believe this, then why not reasonable also to beUeve, That Scripture is His Word, given to teach Himself and Matt. xii. 22. Christ, since there they find Christ "doing that," and "giving Markxvi.27. power to do it after," which themselves saw executed upon their devil-gods ? XVII. Besides, whereas all other written laws have scarce had the honour to be duly observed, or constantly allowed worthy approbation, in the particular places where they have been estab lished for laws ; this law of Christ, and this canon of Scripture, the container of it, is, or hath been, received in almost all nations under heaven ; ^^ and wheresoever it hath been received, it hath been both approved for unchangeable good, and believed for infallible verity. This persuasion could not have been wrought in men of all sorts, but by working upon their reason, unless we shall think all the world unreasonable that received it. And certainly God did not give this admirable faculty of reasoning to the soul of man for any cause more prime than this, to discover, or to judge and allow, within the sphere of its own activity, and not presuming further, of the way to Himself, when and howsoever it should be discovered. XVIII. One great thing that troubled rational men, was that ^ Libros, [qui] quoquo modo se habeant, sancti tamen divinarum [que] rerum pleni prope totius generis humani confessione diffamantur. [Books which, whatever they profess to be, are spread abroad among almost the whole human race and are considered to be holy and full of divine matters.] — S. Augustin. de utilitat. credendi, cap. vii. [ Op. , tom. viii. col. 56. B.] — Scriptura summae dispositione providentias, super omnes omnium gentium literas, omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum divina excellens authoritate subjecit. [The Scripture by the arrangement of divine providence has taken rank above all the literature of all the nations, has excelled by its divine origin every kind of human ability, and subdued everything by its authority.] — S. Augustin. de Civitate Dei, lib. xi. cap. i. [Op., tom. vii. col. 271. D. Migne, vii. 315.] — At [vero] in omni orbe terrarum, in Gra2cia, atque universis [exteris] nationibus, innumeri sunt et immensi, qui relictis patriis legibus, [et his quos putabant Decs,] ad observantiam Moysis [legis et discipulatum se] Christi [cultumque tradiderunt] — Origen. [Rufin. inter pret] lib. iv. vepl dpx(ov, cap. i. [wdtra Si 'EXXds Kal ^dp^apos tj Kard rijc oiKovfuivTjv ¦fj/j.&v, fijXuras ^« p,vplovi, KaToXnrdvTas Tois iraTpipovs vb/jiovs Kal vo/iiL^opJvovs deo^s, ttjs Tijp'fjffem^ tCiv Muiaias vb/iav, Kal rijs ptaSijTelas tuiv 'lTj far convinced. That the text of God is a very credible text. XIX. Well, these are the four ways, by most of which men offer to prove the Scripture to be the word of God, as by a divine and infalUble warrant. And, it seems, no one of these doth it alone. (i.) The tradition of the present Churcb is too weak, because that is not absolutely divine. (2.) The light, which is in Scripture itself, is not bright enough; it cannot bear sufficient witness to itself. (3.) The testimony of the Holy Ghost, that is most infallible, but ordinarily is not so much as considerable in this question ; which is not, how, or by what means, we believe, but how the Scripture may be proposed as a credible object, fit for belief. (4.) And for reason, no man expects that that should prove it : it doth service enough, if it enable us to disprove that which misguided men conceive against it. If none of these, then, be an absolute and sufficient means to prove it, either we must find out another, or see what can be more wrought out of these. And to all this again, A. C. says nothing. reading the letter of the Scripture, them ; even if his knowledge is at- even before they understood it. [Erit tained not at first by the intellect, but igitur divinarum Scripturarum sol- by merely reading the books which lertissimus indagator, qui primo tolas are called Canonical. — Op., tom. in. legerit,] notasque habuerit ; et si non- par. i. col. 23. C. Migne, in. 40.] dum intellectu, [jam] tamen lectione. No question but to make them ready duntaxat [eas quae appellantur Cano- against they understood it ; and as nicae. The most accomplished in- schoolmasters make their scholars con vestigator of the holy Scriptures will their grammar rules by heart, that be the man who has first read the they may be ready for their use, when whole of them, and got to know they better understand them. [CHAPTER IV. The office of the Church is to guide men to the Scriptures. One of the arguments on which Laud has relied in the last chapter for the proof of the Divine authority of Scripture is the witness of the Holy Ghost within us. He has, however, carefully guarded him self. He sees this argument is very dangerous, if used by itself and as su£Scient in itself. It was the argument on which Cromwell and Vane and Harrison, the three most striking figures in the Puritan cocquesc of the English Church, were to rely ; and which they were to push to such dangerous lengths. Already in 1639, only a few months before the meeting of the Long Parliament, this party was coming into sight Laud balances the perilous argument from the inward inspiration of the individual believer, and the equally perilous argument from the voice of an existing infallible Church, which is at last to be reduced to the voice of one existing infallible man sitting in the Papal Chair, with two arguments from Natural Reason, viz. (i) That the effect of the Books of Scripture has been most extraordinary on the nations which received them ; and (2) That every reasonable man is obliged to give homage to the revelation of God, which is made evident to him when he studies Scripture. He now continues the analysis of the position of the Church in the establishment of the Canon of Scripture. Summary of Argument. When we speak of the Church we must distinguish. The voice of the prime Church, which included the Apostles, is divine, and it is to this St. Augustine alludes in his words, " T would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.'' But the present Church is not purely divine. Its work is to unaer- take the duty of inducing men to believe and to study the Scriptures. Then the man who reads will believe for himself; since " Thy word 94 The Prime Christian Church contained i Chapter IS a light " — unless indeed his eyes be blind or he be perverse. Hooker's IV.] vie^ of the matter is next explained; and then Fisher's claim is attacked that all assurance must rest on the testimony of the Roman Bishop and his Clergy, who Laud answers have erred seriously in many things. Fisher pleads danger that copies of the Bible may be corrupted if there is no infallible referee; Laud answers that for this infallibility is not required; critical scholarship will be sufficient. But finally Fisher quotes the promise of Christ to be always with His Church, made quite as much to the doctors and pastors of the present Church as to the Apostles. Laud points out that such an argument would claim infallibility for every teacher and preacher. He examines the passages which are used to establish the argument; (i) St. Luke X. i6; (2) St. Matt, xxviii. ig and 20; and {3) St. John xiv. 16; and argues that none of them, promise a perpetual infallibility. He will not allow tradition to be equal with Scripture, nor the authority of Gods minister to be equal with ths authority of God's Word. Augustine and Vincent of Lerins put Scripture above tradition : the Schoolmen interpret the story of the Samaritans believing first because of the ''^woman's word, then because they have heard Hi-m themselves, as a type of the advance from faith which rests on the Church to faith which rests on the Word. No doubt tradition is the key that lets men into the Scriptures, and is thus of inestimable value as porteress, but it is not queen.'] XX. For the tradition of the Church, then, certain it is, we must distinguish the Church, before we can judge right of the validity of the tradition. For if the speech be of the prime ,' Christian Church, the Apostles, disciples, and such as had ; immediate revelation from heaven ; no question, but the voice and tradition of this Cburch is divine, not aliquo modo, "in a sort," but simply; and the word of God from them is of like validity, written or delivered. And against this tradition, of whicb kind this. That the books of Scripture are the word of God, is tbe most general and uniform, the Church of England never excepted. And when St. Augustine ^ said, " I would not beUeve the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church 1 [Evangehum mihi fortasse lectu- Manichaeus. Well, suppose you find rus es, et inde Manichfei personam some one who does not yet accept the tentabis asserere. Si ergo invenires Gospel, what wUl you do when he aliquem, qui Evangelio nondum says to you, I do not believe this? I, credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi, Non certainly, should not believe the Gos- credo ?] Ego vero EvangeUo non pel, unless I was moved to it by the crederem, nisi me CathoUcae Eccle- CatholicChurch.]— S.Augustin.^«»., tom. ix. col. 102. E. Migne, [iroXbaov t^tpavip-ihrepoiKaleiXa^iaTepoi ix. 133.] Scripture abundantly sufficient 1 1 7 mean that the tradition of it is that by which we first receive the Section Scripture, as by an according means to the prime tradition. But ¦^^'' because it is not "simply divine," we cannot resolve our faith into it, nor settle our faith upon it, till it resolve itself into the prime tradition of the Apostles, or the Scripture, or both ; and there we rest with it. And you cannot shew an ordinary consent of fathers : nay, can you, or any of your quarter, shew any one father of the Church, Greek or Latin, that ever said, We are to resolve our faith, that Scripture is the word of God, into the tradition of the present Churcb ? And again, when the fathers say. We are to rely upon Scripture only,** they are never to be understood with exclusion of tradition, in what causes soever it may be had. Not but that the Scripture is abundantly suffi cient, in and to itself, for all things,** but because it is deep, and may be drawn into different senses, and so be mistaken, if any man wiU presume upon his own strength, and go single without the Church. [THE ROMAN CHURCH IN 1622. The present seems a suitable point to consider how the Roman Church presented itself in the year 1622 to the stronger and more educated intellects in the English Communion. On the 28th of January, 1621, the great Borghese Pope, Paul V., had died of apoplexy. He had reigned for sixteen years, a long time for a Pope in those days ; and his force of character and the skiU of his ministers had raised the Papacy high in Europe. Many countries had been reconquered to the Papal submission ; and the desolating war of thirty years which he had lighted in Germany was promising, when he died, to bring that whole country, the first to throw off' the Roman yoke, back to the Papal See. Paul v., Borghese, %vas an unscrupulous and cruel potentate, and his first act as Pope had been to seize a poor Roman writer who had foolishly compared Pope Clement VIII. to Tiberius and to have him ** Neque enim scientiam coelestium him be anathema.] — S. Augustin. per semet [humana imbecillitas conse- contra [literas] Petiliani, Ub. iii. quetur, etc. Human nature is too cap. 6. [Op., tom. ix. col. 301. E. stupid to master unaided the know- Migne, ix. 351.] ledge of heavenly things.]— S. Hilar. ^^Quum sit perfectus Scripturarum de Trinit. lib. iv. [cap. 14. Op., col. canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque 835. C. ed. Benedict Migne, ii. 107.] sufficiat [Since the Canon of the —Si angelus de coelo annunciaverit Scriptures is complete, and is in itself (Gal. i. 8) praeterquam quod in Scrip- sufficient for aU things, and more than turis [legalibus et evangelicis ac- sufficient] — SIvn.lAtinens.contra Har. cepistis, anathema sit. If an angel cap. u. [pp. 4, 5.] And if it be sibi from Heaven should preach anything cui omnia, then to this, to prove itself, beyond what you have received in the at least after tradition hath prepared lawful and evangelical Scriptures let us to receive it. ii8 Roman Church in 1622 [Chapter publicly beheaded on the Bridge of S. Angelo. Cruel and unscrupu- IV.] lous as he was, lovers of the Roman city will always mention Paul's name with respect as the founder of the wealthy, magnificent, artistic House of the Borghese. His place was taken by Gregory XV., famous also as the founder of a famous house, the Ludovisi ; he was feeble, sick, and bent with age, nearly seventy and very infirm for his years, and was chosen apparently as not likely long to stand in the path of ambitious Car dinals. But for the moment his power was unexpectedly seized and wielded by his nephew, Ludovico Ludovisi, a young man of twenty- five, full of talent and of audacity. Cardinal Ludovisi was the patron of the Jesuits. He it was who built that gorgeous Church of St. Ignatius, still so famous among the Roman churches for its splendour and magnificence. He it was who caused the first two great Jesuits to be canonised, St. Ignatius Loyola and St. Francis Xavier. He it was who established the College of the Propaganda, whose duty is to spread Romanism over the world. Severe, orthodox, oppressive was this young Cardinal ; he had great plans — plans which we cannot help admiring. And the result has proved how well he had gauged the tendencies of the future. To-day Roman worship and the spiritual life of Rome are not to be seen or to be studied in the great Vatican Church built over St. Peter's grave ; nor in the old historic home of the Papacy, St. John Lateran ; nor in the vast Basilica of St Paul. Travellers get a very false opinion in those splendid churches of the spiritual fervour of the Romans, and think religion near its death in the Papal city. But in the Jesuit Church (the Gesu) the power of religion still lives ; there men gather to pray round the body ofthe canonised Ignatius, whose dead hand still holds the Papacy and the Roman Church in its grip. Certainly Ludovisi was a great thinker and a mighty man of action. His uncle's legates, or rather his legates, were driving Protestant preachers out of every district of Germany. The persecution was at its height in 1622. Gregory reigned only for two years, but in those two years he made his nephew wealthy and powerful ; and his nephew pushed forward Romanism in all quarters. Opposition to such a ruler was dangerous enough. And yet what a picture ! We can see Laud glancing at Buckingham as the question of the present infallible Pope comes up, with a look which says, " Note, you must receive Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, St. Paul and St John, even our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, on the bare word of this aged invalid in the Vatican, swayed by the decisions of a young man of twenty-five. Is this what you are prepared to accept?" But the personal factor is never introduced by Laud into his argu ment. He proceeds now to sum up the proof, which he thinks sufficient, for the inspiration of the Bible.] [CHAPTER V. Proofs that Scripture is the Word of God. Summary of Argument. First, every Science must have its presupposed principles. Secondly, in the Science of Divinity, these principles resolve into " the maxims of divine knowledge supernatural!' Thirdly, they are known by faith, which is a tnixed act of the Will and the Understanding. Fourthly, the great mysteries of Divinity rest, not on the testimony of the Church, but on the infallibility of God. Fifthly, the historical evidence that the Books of Scripture were written by the Prophets, Apostles, etc., is amply sufficient; and the evidence that the writers were inspired by God is not their own assertion, nor is it miracles, nor is it reason, but faith. Sixthly, our assent to the principle that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore the supre-me authority does not depend on reasoning but on faith; and therefore men who are convinced of the power of their own wisdom cannot accept it. Seventhly, the knowledge ofthe supreme Cause, i.e. God, is beyond reason; but on the assumption of Gods good ness andofouriinmortality, which are proved by reason, we feel sure that there must be a Revelation. Lastly, the proof that Scripture is this Revelation comes (a) from the testimony of the Church, (b) frotn the light in Scripture itself. Thus our acceptance of Scripture springs from our faith and thrust in God. As for the Jesuits; ifthey accept the Scripture on the authority of the Church, whence do they get grounds for accepting the authority of the Church ? They can only answer it is based on Scripture, which makes a vicious circle of argumentP] XXXIV. — To gather up whatsoever may seem scattered in this long discourse, to prove that Scripture is the word of God, I shall now, in the last place, put aU together, that so the whole state of the question may the better appear. Section XVI. I20 A summing up of proofs [Chapter ' First, then, I shall desire the reader to consider, that every ^¦'^ j rational science requires some principles quite without its own ' limits, which are not proved in that science, but presupposed. Thus rhetoric presupposes grammar, and music, arithmetic. Therefore it is most reasonable tbat Theology should be allowed to have some principles also, which she proves not, but pre- supposes.i And the chiefest of these is. That the Scriptures are of divine authority. / Secondly, That there is a great deal of difference in the manner of confirming the principles of divinity, and those of any other art or science whatsoever. For the principles of all other sciences do finally resolve, either into the conclusions of some higher science, or into those principles which are 'per se nota, " known by their own light," and are the grounds and principles of all science. And this is it, which properly makes them sciences, because they proceed with such strength of demonstration, as forces reason to yield unto them. But the principles of divinity resolve not into the grounds of natural reason, — for then there would be no room for faith, but all would be either knowledge or vision, — but, into the maxims of divine knowledge supernatural. And of this we have just so much light, and no more, than God bath revealed unto us in the Scripture. Thirdly, That though the evidence of tbese supernatural truths, which divinity teaches, appears not so manifest as that of the natural ; yet they are in themselves much more sure and infalUble than they.2 For they proceed immediately from God, that ' Omnis scientia prassupponit fidem to deny that to divinity, which all aliquam. [Every science presupposes sciences, nay all things, challenge : some faith.] — S. Prosper, in Psalm. namely, some things to be presup- cxxiii. [This passage is not to be posed and believed. found under Psalm cxxiU. Dr. Scott ^ Si vis credere manifestis, invisibi- suggests that the passage alluded to Ubus magis quam visibilibus oportet by Laud in citing this maxim may be : credere. Licet dictum sit adrairabile. Vide igitur Deum primo per fidem, verum est, etc. [If you wish to believe ut postea possis videre per speciem. what is evident, the invisible ought to Therefore, see God first by faith, in be believed much more than the order that afterwards you may see visible. Although it is called marvel- Him by sight. — S. Prosper. Aquitan. lous, it is true. ] — S. Chrysostom. .Sam. Expos, in Ps. cxx. 4. Op., col. 466. xlvi. ad Pop. [i.e. in S. Matth. D. ed. Paris. 1711. Migne, 365.] Homil. xui. vide infra, note 12.] And S. Cyril. Hierosolym. Cateches. And there he proves it. — Aliae V. [cap. 3. (al. 2.) Op., p. 72. E. scientias certitudinem habent ex Migne, 508,] shews how all things in naturali lumine rationis humanas, qua: the world do fide consistere [rest on potest errare : haec (sc. Theologia) faith]. Therefore most unreasonable autem [certitudinem habet] ex lumine That Scripture is God's Word 121 Section XVI. Heavenly Wisdom, which being tbe fountain of ours, must needs infinitely precede ours, both in nature and excellence. " He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know ? " ^ And Ps. xciv.[io.) therefore, though we reach not the order of their deductions, nor can in this life come to the vision of them, yet we yield as full and firm assent, not only to the articles, but to all tbe things rightly deduced from them, as we do to the most evident principles of natural reason. This assent is called faith; and "faith being of Heb. m. .. things not seen," would quite lose its honour,* nay itself, if it met with sufficient grounds in natural reason whereon to stay itself For faith is a mixed act of the will and the understanding ; and 1 the will inclines the understanding * to yield full approbation to that whereof it sees not full proof Not but tbat there is most divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest. [Other branches of knowledge nave their certainty from the natural light of human reason, which can err, hut this, i.e. theology, has its certainty from the Ught of Divine knowledge, which cannot go wrong.] — Thom. [Aquin. Secund.] par. I. Q[uaest] i. A[rt] 5. in conclus. ^Psal. xciv. 10. Our old English translation reads it, " Shall not He punish ? " that is, Shall not He know when, and why, and how to punish ? * Si sit ratio convincens, et propter eam quis credat, alias non crediturus, tolUtur meritum fidei. [Supposing there is convincing reason, and a man beUeves because of it, but would not beUeve otherwise, the merit of Faith js taken away.] — [Gabr.] Biel. in III. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xxv. Q[uaest.] unica [Dub. 4. T.] in fine. — Non est dicendus credere, cujus judicium sub- igitur aut cogitur. [A man cannot be said to believe when his judgment is subdued or compelled.] — Stapleton. Triplicat. adversus Whitaker. [pro ecclesia auctoritate,] cap. vi. p. 64. IPp., tom. i. p. 1 157. A.] 'Est enim fides [voluntaria,] nec fit in nobis nisi volentibus. [For faith is voluntary and only grows in us when we are wilUng. ] — [Cardinal. ] Tolet. in S. Johan. xvi. Annot. 33. [seu potius, 13, Comment, in Johan. Evangel. torn. i. col. 154. F. ed. Lugd. 1615.] Qui voluerunt crediderunt, [quamvis in quem crediderunt non viderunt. Those, who wished, believed, although ithey did not see Him in Whom they believed.] — S. Augustin. Serm. Ix. de verb. Dom. cap. 5. [Serm. cxliii. de verbis Evangelii Johan. xvi. Ego veritatem, etc. Op., tom. v. col. 693. A. Migne, v. 787] — Fides actus est non solius inteUectus, sed etiam voluntatis, quae cogi non potest ; imo magis voluntatis quam intel- lectus : sed etiam, quatenus ilia opera- tionis principium est, et aissensum, qui proprie fidei actus est, sola elicit ; nec ab intellectu voluntas, sed a voluntate inteUectus, in actu fidei determinatur. [Faith is an act not of the intellect alone, but also of the will, which cannot be under com pulsion : yea it has more to do with the will than with the intellect, and in so far as the will is the beginning of the matter, it also alone secures the assent which is properly an act of faith : nor is the will determined by the intellect, but the intellect by the wUl in the act of faith.] — Stapleton. Triplicat. adversus Whitaker, cap. vi. etc. [ubi sup. note 4] — Credere . . . actus est inteUectus determinati ad unum ex imperio voluntatis. [To be lieve is an act of the intellect deter mined to the one thing by the power ofthe will.] — Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[u£Est.] iv. A[rt.] i. in conclus. — Non potest dari aliquis assensus fidei, quicunque sit ille, qui non dependeat in suis causis mediate vel immediate ab actu voluntatis. [No assent of faith, whatever it is, can be grtfen which does not depend in its causes, mediately or immediately, on an act of the will.] — Jac. Almain. in 122 Historical evidence for Scripture Books [Chapter full proof of them, but becausc the main grounds which prove ^•1 them are concealed from our view, and folded up in the un revealed counsel of God ; God in Christ resolving to bring man kind to their last happiness by faith, and not by knowledge, that so the weakest among men may have their way to blessedness open. And certain it is, that many weak men believe themselves into heaven, and many over-knowing Christians lose their way thither, whUe they will believe no more than they can clearly luiow. In which pride and vanity of theirs they are left, and Matt. xi. 25. have these things "hid from them." Fourthly, That the credit of the Scripture, the book in which the principles of faith are written, as of other writings also, depends not upon the subservient inducing cause that leads us to the first knowledge of the author, which leader here is the Church ; but upon the author himself, and the opinion we have of his sufficiency, which here is the Holy Spirit of God, whose penmen the Prophets and Apostles were. fSid therefore the mysteries of divinity contained in this book, as tbe incarnation of our Saviour, ; the resurrection of tbe dead, and the like, cannot finally be resolved into the sole testimony of the Church, who is but a subservient cause to lead to the knowledge of the author, but into- the wisdom and sufficiency of the author. Who being omnipotent and omniscient, must needs be infallibS Fifthly, That the assurance we have of the penmen of the Scriptures, the holy Prophets and Apostles, is as great as any can be had of any human authors of like antiquity. For it is morally as evident to any pagan, that St. Matthew and St. Paul writ the Gospel and Epistles which bear their names, as that Cicero or Seneca wrote theirs. But that the Apostles were divinely inspired whilst they writ them, and that they are the very word of God expressed by them, tbis hath ever been a matter of faith in the Church, and was so even while the Apostles themselves lived," III. Sent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Conclus. *TheApostles,indeed,they"knew,"' 6. Dub. 4. fol. Ixxix. — And St Augus- for they had clear revelation : they to tine says, Fidei locum esse cor. [The whom they preached might believe, heart is the abode of faith.] — Tractat. l)ut they could not know without the lii. 8. in S. Johan. [cap. xii. Op., like revelation. '&o St . John -kvl. t,^. tom. iii. par. 2. col. 642. D. Migne, " He that saw knows that he says- iU. 1772.] Where the heart is put true, that you, which saw not, might for the whole soul, which equally believe." — Deus in Prophetis, et sic comprehends both the will and the in Apostolis, quos immediate illumina- understanding. — And so doth [Gabr.] bat, causabat evidentiam. [God pro- Biel. also in III. Sentent. D[istinct.] duced the evidence in the Prophets. xxv.Q[ua2st]unic. Art. i. [Coroll. 4.]F. and also in the Apostles, whom He Apostolic miracles not the best proofs 123 and was never a matter of evidence and knowledge, at least as knowledge is opposed to faith. Nor could it at any time then be more demonstratively proved than now. I say, not scientifice, not demonstratively : for, were the Apostles living, and should they tell us that they spake and writ the very oracles of God, yet this were but their own testimony of themselves, and so not alone able to enforce belief on others. And for their miracles, though they were very great inducements of belief, yet were neither they evident and convincing proofs, alone and of themselves ; both because there may be counterfeit miracles,'^ and because true ones are neither infallible nor inseparable marks of truth in doctrine.' Sectiom XVI. Himself directly Uluminated.] — Jac. Almain. in III. Sent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uaast.] unic. Conclus. 6. But for the residue of men, it is no more, but as Thomas hath it : Oportet quod credatur auctoritati eorum, quibus revelatio facta est. [We ought to believe the authoritative witness of those men to whom the revelation was given.] — Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. I. Q[uaest.] i. A[rt]8. [Migne, i. 467.] ' Non est evidens vel ista esse vera miracula, vel ista fieri ad illam veri tatem comprobandam. [It is not clear either that they were true miracles or that they were worked in order to prove that truth.] — Jac. Almain. in III. Sent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uaest.] unic. Concl. 6. Therefore the miracles which Christ and His Apostles did, were fully sufficient to beget faith to assent, but not evidence to convince. 'Cantos nos fecit sponsus, quia et miraculis decipi non debemus. [The bridegroom made us cautious, because even miracles ought not to be able to draw us away.] — S. Augustin. in S. Johan. Evang. [cap. iii. 29.] Tractat. xiii. 17. [in ilia verba. Post hssc venit Jesus, etc. Op., tom. iii. par. 2. col. 399. A. Migne, ui. 1501.] And he that says we ought not to be deceived, acknowledges that we may be de ceived, even by miracles. And argu ments which can deceive are not sufficient to convince, though they be sometimes too full of efficacy to per vert And so plainly Almain out of Ocham. Nunquam acquiritur evi- dentia per medium quod de se general falsum assensum sicut verum. [Proof is never gained by a means which produces a false assent to its own truthfiilness.] — Jac. Almain. in III. Sent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uaest.] unic. Cone. 6. [ubi sup. note 7]. And therefore that learned Roman Catholic, who tells us the Apostles' miracles made it evident that their doctrine was true and divine, went too far. "Credible" they made it, but not " evident." And therefore he is after forced to confess ' ' that the soul some times assents not to the miracles, but in great timidity, which cannot stand with clear evidence." And after again, "that the soul may renounce the doctrine formerly confirmed by miracles, unless some inward and supernatural light be given, etc." And neither can this possibly stand with evidence. And therefore BeUarmine goes no further than this : Quod mira cula sint [necessaria] ad novam fidem [vel extraordinariam missionem] per- suadendam. Efficacia et sufficientia, etc. [Miracles are necessary to per suade us to a new faith or to an extraordinary mission ; and for this purpose they are potent and sufficient.] — [Bellarmin.] de notis ecclesia, lib. iv. cap. 14. § I. [Op., tom. U. col. 2o5. D.] To induce and persuade, but not to convince. And Thomas will not grant so much, for he says expressly [Laud's quotation of Thomas Aq. gives the sense ; it is not literal] : Miraculum non est sufficiens causa inducens fidem: quia videntium unum et idem miracu lum, quidam credunt, et quidam non [credunt. A miracle is not a sufficient reason to induce faith ; because among men seeing one and tbe same miracle, some believe and some do not believe.] — Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. 124 Evidence of Scripture t Chapter v.] Deut. xiii. a Thess. il. 9. Markxiii.22. John 3t. 41. Isa. liii. I. Not infalUble, for tbey may be marks of false doctrine in the highest degree : not proper and inseparable, for all which wrote by inspiration did not confirm their doctrine by miracles.^ For we do not find tbat David, or Solomon, witb some other of the prophets, did any; neither were any wrought by St. John the Baptist. So, as credible signs, they were, and are still, of as much force to us as it is possible for things on the credit of relation to be : for the witnesses are many, and such as spent their lives in making good the truth wbich they saw. But that the workers of them were divinely and infallibly inspired in that which they preached and writ, was still to the hearers a matter of faith,!" g^^^ no more evident, by the light of human reason, to men that Uved in those days than to us now. For, had that been demonstrated or been clear, as prime principles are, in its own light, both they and we had apprehended all the mysteries of divinity by know ledge, not by faith. But this is most apparent was not. For, had the Prophets or Apostles been ordered by God to make this demonstratively or intuitively, by discourse or vision, appear as clear to their auditors as to themselves it did, that whatsoever they taught was divine and infallible truth, all men which had the true use of reason must have been forced to yield to their doctrine. Isaiah could never have been at Domine quis ? " Lord, who hath Q[ussst.] vi. A[rt.] i. in conclus. [Migne, iii. 65.] — And Ambrosius Ca tharinus, in Rom. x. 15, is downright at Nulla fides est habenda signo : examinanda sunt. [No faith must be put in miracles . . . they must be examined.] — [Ambros. Catharin. in omnes Divi Pauli Epistolas, etc. p. 100. ed. Paris. 1566.] — And Anas tasius Nicaenus Episcopus, apud Baron. ad An. 360. Num. 21. — Non sint necessaria signa verae fidei. [Miracles are not necessary to a true faith.] Suarez, defensio fidei Catholica, [contra Anglican, etc.] lib. i. cap. vU. § 3. [col. 34. F. ed. Colon. 1614.] 'Operatio virtutum alteri datur, t Cor. xii. 10. To one and another, he saith, not to all, is given the work ing of miracles. — Fugare daemonia, mortuos suscitare . . . dedit quibusdam discipulis suis, quibusdam non dedit : (i.e. to do miracles). [He gave to some of His disciples the power to put devUs to flight, and to raise the dead; to others He did not give this power.] — S. Augustin. Serm. xxii. de verbis Apostol. cap. 5' [Serm. clxiv. de verbis Apostol. Gal. vi. Invicem onera vestra, etc. cap. 5. Op., tom. v. col. 792. G. Migne, v. 898.] ^'' Here it may be observed how warily A. C. carries himself. For when he hath said, " that a clear re velation was made to the Apostles," which is most true ; and so the Apostles knew that which they taught simpliciter a priori, most demonstra tively from the prirae cause, God Himself: then he adds, p. 51, "I say, clear in attestante. " That is, the re velation of this truth was clear in the Apostles that witnessed it. But to make it knowledge in the auditors, the same, or Uke revelation, and as clear, must be made to them. For they could have no other ' ' knowing " assurance: "credible" they might, and had. So A. C. is wary there, but comes not home to the business ; and so might have held his peace. For the question is not. What clear evidence the Apostles had ? but, What evidence they had which heard them ? Always requires faith to believe 125 believed our report ? " Nor Jeremy at Domine, factus sum, " Lord, I am in derision daily." Nor could any of St. Paul's auditors have "mocked at him," as some of them did, for "preaching the resurrection," if they had had as full a view as St. Paul himself had in "the assurance," which God gave of it, in and by "the resurrection of Christ." ^^ But the way of knowledge was not that which God thought fittest for man's salvation. For man having sinned by pride, God thought fittest to humble him at the very root of the tree of knowledge, and make him deny his under standing, and submit to faith, or hazard bis happiness. The credible object all the while, that is, the mysteries of religion and the Scripture which contain them, is divine and infalUble ; and so are the penmen of them by revelation. But we and all our fore fathers, the hearers and readers of them, have neither knowledge 1 nor vision of the prime principles in or about them, but faith ' only.i^ And the revelation, which was clear to them, is not so to us, nor therefore the prime tradition itself delivered by them. Section XVI. Jer. XX. 7. Acts xvit. '^Acts xvu. 32. And had Zedekiah and the people seen it as clearly as Jeremy himself did, that the word he spake was God's word and infallible, Jerusalem, for aught we know, had not been laid desolate by the Chal deans. But because they could not see this by the way of knowledge, and would not believe it by way of faith, they, and that city, perished together. Jer. xxxviii. 17. ^Scriptura testatur, cui nemo pius nisi qui credit. [The Scripture gives the evidence in whirfi every pious man beUeves.] — S. Augustin. ccmtra Faustum, lib. xxvi. cap. 6. [Op., tom. vui. col. 437. F.] Now no man believes the Scripture, that doth not believe that it is the word of God. I say, which doth not "be lieve '' ; I do not say, which doth not "know." Oportet quod credatur auctoritati eorum quibus revelatio facta est [We ought to believe the authoritative witness of those men to whom the revelation wais given.] — Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. I. Q[uaest] i. A[rt.] 8. ad secundum ; [Migne, i. 467. ubi sup. p. 123. note 6.] — 8ti Si y\ivxjjv itxoi>£v [ir68ev SijXov ; el ydp Sij toIs bpiapiivois piiXXeis iritr- Teieiv, Kal irepl deov, Kal irepl d^yyiXojv, Kal irepl vov, xal irepl ^vxfjs d/x^i^dX- Xeis, Kal oih-ias doi irdvTa olxv^^Tai Td TTJS dXTjdeias Sdypuira. Kairoiye el tois (jyavepois iricTTe^eiv ^ovXebei, rois dopd- Tois pidXXov ^ Tois bpwp.ivois iruTTeieiv Sec el KoX irapddo^ov Tb elpijpiivov, dXX' 8/j.iiJS dXijdis, Kal irapd toIs voOv ^ovffL a^ibSpa wpioXoyijpiivov. But what is tbe evidence that we have a soul? Well, do you wish only to be lieve in things seen, and do you have doubts about God and about angels, and about the mind ; thus all the dogmas of truth will fade away for you. Nevertheless, if you decide to beUeve things which are evident, you ought to believe things which are unseen more than things which are seen ; and though it sounds like a paradox, none the less it is true, and generally acknowledged by people of inteUigence. — S. Chrysostom. in Matt. Homil. xiu. <9;>.,tom. vii. p. 175. C] Quod vero animam habemus, unde manifestum ? Si enim visibilibus cre dere veils, et de Deo, et de angelis, et de mente, et de anima dubitatis ; et sic tibi omnia veritatis dogmata de- peribunt. Et certe si manifestis cre dere veils, invisibilibus magis quam visibilibus credere oportet. Licet enim admirabile sit dictum, verum tamen, etapud mentem habentes valdecertum, vel in confesso. — Ex Homil. xiii. S. Chrysostom. in S. Matt. [Op.,] tom. i. edit. Front. [Ducaei,] Paris. 1636. 126 Reason can show God's existence I Chapter v.] Luke ix. 23, I Sixthly, That hence it may be gathered that the assent which we yield to this main principle of divinity, " that the Scripture is the word of God," is grounded upon no compelling or demonstra tive ratiocination, but reUes upon the strength of faith more than any other principle whatsoever.!^ For all other necessary points of divinity may, by undeniable discourse, be inferred out of Scripture itself, once admitted ; but, this concerning the authority of Scripture, not possibly : but must either be proved by revela tion, which is not now to be expected ; or presupposed and granted as manifested in itself, like the principles of natural knowledge, which reason alone will never grant ; or by tradition of the Church botb prime and present, with all other rational helps, preceding or accompanying the internal light in Scripture itself, which though it give light enough for faith to believe, yet light enough it gives not to be a convincing reason and proof for knowledge. And this is it which makes the very entrance into divinity inaccessible to those men, who, standing high in the opinion of their own wisdom, wUl believe nothing but that which is irrefragably proved from rational principles. For as Christ requires a denial of a man's self, that he may be able to follow Him : so as great a part as any of this denial of his whole self, for so it must be, is the denial of his understanding, and the com posing of tbe unquiet search of this grand inquisitor into the secrets of Him that made it, and the overruling the doubtfulness of it by the fervency of the will.!* Seventhly, That the knowledge of the supreme cause of all, which is God, is most remote, and the most difficult thing reason can have to do with. The quod sit, that there is a God, blear- eyed reason can see ; is but the quid sit, what that God is, is ^^And this is the ground of that which I said before. Sect. xv. No. 1, that the Scripture only, and not any unwritten tradition, was the founda tion of our faith : namely, when the authority of Scripture is first yielded unto. ^* InteUectus credentis determinatur [ad unum] non per rationem, [sed] per voluntatem. [The intellect of the believer is brought to agreement not by the reason but by the will.]— Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] ii. A[rt.] I. ad tertium. [Migne, iii. 29. ubi sup. p. 87. note 62.] And what power the will hath in case of men's believing, or not believing, is manifest,y<;;'. xliv. But this is spoken of the will compared with the under standing only, leaving the operations of grace free over both. ¦"^ Communis enim sententia est patrum et theologorum aliorum, de- monstrari posse naturali ratione Deum esse ; sed a posteriori et per effectus. [For this is the general opinion of the fathersandothertheologians that God's existence can be proved by natural reason ; but as an inference and because of what He effects.]— Sic Thom. [Kofi\n.Summ.] p. i.Q[uaest.] ii. A[rt.] 2. [Migne, i. 473-]— Et, [S. Joann.] Not His nature 127 Section XVI. infinitely beyond all the fathoms of reason.!'^ He is a light indeed, but such as no man's reason can come at for the bright ness.!" Jf anything, therefore, be attainable in this kind it must / 1 Tim. vi. be by revelation,!* and that must be from Himself : for none can [16.] Damascen. Orthodox. Fid. lib. i. cap. 3. [tom. i. p. 125. C. ed. Lequien. Migne, i. 793. "On pjiv aHv ioTi Sebs, Tols p.iv rds dylas ypa(j>ds Sexop^ois, TTJV Te TraXaiav koI Kaivijv Siad-fjKTjv, tpTjpd, oOk dpitpi^dXXeTal, oUTe Si Tols TWV "EiXXTfjvwv TrXeiffTois' ws ydp liprrjpiev, ¦ij 7i'ui(rts tov eXvai debv ipvalKws -rjp^v iyKaTicnrapTai. Now that God exists, is not doubted, I say, by those who accept the Holy Scriptures, the old and the new Testa ment, nor yet by the majority of Greeks : for as we said, the knowledge of God's existence is planted in us by nature.] — Et, Qac] Almain. in III. Sentent. D[istinct.] xxiv. Q[uasst.] unic. [Almain implies tbe same, but denies that the natural knowledge of God is that of demonstration : he says. Ilia propositio, " Deus est," est demonstrabilis apud beatos, et non apud viatores : cum non possint habere medium per quod demonstraretur : puta notitiam simpUcem et incom- plexamDei. That proposition, "God is," can be demonstrated to those who are in bUss, but not to the wayfarers, since these have no means by which it can be demonstrated ; think of the simple and uninvolved nature of God. — fol. IxxiUj.] — But what may be demonstiated by natural reason, by natural light may the same be known. And s6 the Apostle himself, Rom. i. 20. Invisibilia Dei a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta con- spiciuntur. [The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made.] And so Calvin most clearly, Instit. lib. i. cap. 5. § I. [Op., tom. viii. p. 5.] Aperire oculos nequeant, quin aspicere Eum cogantur. [They cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see Him :] though Bellarmine would needs be girding at him, de Gratia et libero Arbitrio, lib iv. cap. 2. — Vide tur autem et ratio Us quae apparent at- testari : Omnes enim homines de Dus (ut ille loquitur) habent existimation- em. — Aristot de Ccelo, lib. i. cap. 22. [ Eowe 5' 8 re X670S tois tpaivopjivois liapTvpeiv, Kal Td of this kind from the world's beginning to this day — and that willl 1 put thsfrustra upon God in point of man's felicity ; — or, that the' Scriptures which we now embrace as the word of God is that revelation. And that is it we Christians labour to make good against all atheism, profaneness and infidelity. Last of all. To prove that the book of God, which we honour as :\ His word, is this necessary revelation of God and His truth, which ' must, and is alone able to, lead us in the way to our eternal blessedness, or else the world hath none, comes in a cloud of witnesses ; some for the infidel, and some for the believer ; some for the weak in faith, and some for the strong, and some for all. For then first comes in the tradition of the Church — the present Church, so it is no heretical or schismatical belief; then the testimony of former ages, so it is no new belief ; then the consent of times, so it is no divided or partial behef; then the harmony of the prophets, and them fulfilled, so it is not a " devised " but a 2 Pet. i. 16. '"Ultima beatitudo hominis con- ii. A[rt.] 3. in conclus. [Migne, iii. sistit in quadam supernaturali Dei 31.] visione, ad quam quidem visionem ^ Deus et natura nihil frustra homo pertingere non potest, nisi per faciunt. [6 Si Bebs Kal -Ij (pia-is ovSiv modum addiscentis a Deo doctore. pAttjv iroiova-iv. God and Nature do [The highest happiness of man con- nothing but for an end.] — Aristot. de sists in the supernatural vision of God, Calo, lib. i. cap. 32. [cap. 4. in fin. and to this vision man is only able to Op., tom. ii. p. 219. ed. Bekker.]— attain by learning about it under the Frustra autem est quod non potest tuition of God.] — St. John v'l. 4^. — habere suum usum. [But what cannot Omnis qui audivit a Patre et didicit have any use is for no end.] — Thom. [venit ad Me. Every one who has [Aquin.] ibid. [i.e. in Aristot. lib. heard the Father and learnt from de Calo et Mundo, Lect. viii. p. 18. Him cometh unto Me.]— Thom. apud tom. ii. Op., S. Thom. Aquin. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[u8est.] ed. Venet 1595.] L. I 130 An excellent Text [ Chapter forespoken belief ; then the success of the doctrine contained in ^¦' this book, so it is not a belief stifled in the cradle, but it hath spread through the world in despite of what the world could do against it, and increased from weak and unlikely beginnings to incredible greatness ; then the constancy of this truth, so it is no moon-belief, for in the midst of the world's changes, it hath preserved its creed entire through many generations; then, that there is nothing carnal in the doctrine, so it is a chaste beUef And all along it hath gained, kept, and exercised more power upon the minds of men, both learned and unlearned, in the increase of virtue and repression of vice, than any moral philosophy or legal policy tbat ever was. Then comes the inward light and excellency of the text itself, and so it is no dark . or dazzling belief And it is an excellent text : for see the riches of natural knowledge which are stored up there as well as super natural. Consider how things quite above reason consent with things reasonable. Weigh it well what majesty lies there hid under humility: what depth ^^^ there is with a perspicuity un- imitable : what " delight " 27 it works in the soul that is devoutly exercised in it : how the sublimest wits find in it enough to amaze them, while the simplest want not enough to direct them : ^s and then we shaU not wonder, if, — with the assistance of God's Spirit, 29 Who alone works faith and belief of the Scriptures and ^•^ Quasi quidam [quippe] est fluvius, in parables, that the diligent mind planus et altus, in quo et agnus am- may be fully furnished in its search, bulet, et elephas natet. [As if there and more richly rewarded in its dis- was a great river, smooth and deep, coveries.]— S. Augustin. de Moribus in which a lamb walks and an Eccl. CathoL [et Manic h. Ub. i.] cap. elephant swims.]— S. Gregor. [Magn. 17. [0^, tom. i. col. 698. F.]— Quia Epistola,] Prrfat. in Lib. Moral. nihU sub spirituali sensu continetur [sed. Expos, in libr. Job.] cap. 4. Fidei necessarium, quod Scriptura per £0/. torn. 1. col. 5. E. ed. Benedict] literalem sensum alicubi manifeste In lege Domini voluntas ejus. non tradat [But nothing necessar)' ,[In the law of the Lord is his delight] to faith is contained hidden under the --Psa. 1. 2.— Dulcior super mel et spiritual sense ; all this the Scripture favuni. [Sweeter than honey and the elsewhere delivers openly through the honeycomb.]— Pja. xvui. ii. et pas- Uteralsense.]— Thom.[Aquin.5a«ffi.] ^'"iVc. -, . P^"^- !¦ Q[usest.] i. A[rt.] 10. Resp. ¦"[bed quia] multa dicuntur sub- adi™™. [Migne, i. 470.] missis et humi repentibus animis "^ Et credimus . . . ob alia multa accommodatius, ut per humana in certiora argumenta (quam est testi divina consurgant ; multa etiam figu- monium ecclesiae), tum propter hoc rate, ut studiosa mens et quKsitis potissimum, quod Spiritus Sanctus exerceatur utilius, et uberius lastetur nobis intus has esse Dei voces per- inventis. [Many things are spoken suadeat. [We believe on account of most conveniently to humble souls many other arguments more solid than which creep upon the ground, that the evidence of the Church ; and most they may rise by human knowledge of all for this because the Holy Spirit to divme ; many things too are spoken persuades us that those inward voices Motives for believing Scripture 131 their divine authority, as well as otber articles, — we grow up into section a most infallible assurance ; such an assurance as hath made many ¦''^'• lay down their lives for this truth : such as that, " though an angel from heaven should preach unto us another Gospel," we Gai. i. a. would not believe him or it. No, though we should see as great and as many miracles done over again to dissuade us from it, as were at first to win the world to it. To which firmness of assent, by the operation of God's Spirit, the will confers as much or more strength, than the understanding clearness ; the whole assent being an act of faith, and not of knowledge. And therefore the question should not have been asked of me by F. " How I knew ? " but, " Upon what motives I did believe Scripture to be the word of God ? " And I would have him take heed lest hunting too close after a way of knowledge, he lose the way of faith, and teach other men to lose it too. So then the way lies thus, as far as it appears to me, The credit of Scripture to be divine, resolves finally into that faith which we have touching God Himself, and in the same order. For as that, so this, hath three main grounds, to which all other are reducible. The first is, the tradition of the Church : and this leads us to a reverend persuasion of it. The second is, the light of Nature : and this shows us how necessary such a revealed learning is, and that no other way it can be had. Nay more,^" that all proofs brought against any point of faith, neither are nor can be demonstrations but soluble arguments. The third is. The light of the Text itself: in conversing wherewith, we meet with the Spirit of God ^! inwardly inclining our hearts, and sealing the full assurance of the sufficiency of all three unto us. And then, and not before, we are certain tbat the Scripture is the word of God, both by divine and by infallible proof. But our certainty is by faith, are the voices of God.] — Whitaker, demonstrated whicb is contrary to it, Controv. de Sacra Scriptura, Contro- it follows that all the arguments vers. I. [de Scripturae auctoritate,] which are brought against faith can- Q[uaest.] iii. cap. 8. [Op., tom. i. p. not be demonstrations, but only 325. col. 2.] arguments easily answered.] — Thom. "Cum fides infaUibUi veritati in- [Aquin. Summ.] part. I. Q[u^st.] i. nitatur: et ideo cum impossibile sit A[rt] 8. in conclus. [Migne, i. de vero demonstrari contrarium : se- 467.] quitur omnes probationes, quae contra ^' Fidei ultima resolutio est in fidem inducuntur, non posse esse Deum illuminantem. [Faith is ulti- demonstrationes, sed solubilia argu- mately resolved into the enlightening menta. [Since faith rests on infallible power of God.] — S. Augustin. cont. truth, and since therefore it is impos- Fu-nd. cap. 14. — Op., tora. viii. col. sible that anything should be truly 160. E. ubi sup. p. 87 note 62.] 132 Edification, not destruction [ Chapter and SO Voluntary ; not by knowledge of such principles as in the light of nature can enforce assent, whether we will or no. I have said thus much upon this great occasion, because this argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture. And I have proceeded in a synthetical way, to build up the truth for the benefit of the Church, and the satisfaction of all men, Christianly disposed. Whereas, had I desired only to rid my hands of these captious Jesuits, — for certainly this question was captiously asked, — it had been sufficient to have restored the question, thus, " How do you know the testimony of the Church (by which, you say, you know Scripture to be the word of God) to be divine and infallible ? " If they prove it by Scripture, as all of them do, and as A. C. doth, how do they know that Scripture to be Scripture ? It is but a circular assurance of theirs, by which they found the Church's infallibility upon the testimony of the Scripture, and the Scripture's infaUibihty upon the testimony of the Church : that is upon the matter, the Church's infaUibUity upon the Church's infallibiUty. But I labour for edification, not for destruction. And now, by what I have here said I will weigh my answer, and his exception taken against it. [CHAPTER VI. In debates among Christians, the authority of Scripture must be assumed and granted by both sides. Summary of Argument. The authority of Scripture needs to be defended in arguing with Section the heathen; but not in arguing with Christians. Among them it xvil. must be treated as a praecognitum, an assumed principle. It is not self-evident; but it rests on a superior knowledge which is " the know ledge of God and the blessed in heaven." The history of the Church ¦proves that the Scriptures have been handed down as the oracles of God, delivered to mankind by Christ and His Apostles. This is a point which can be demonstrated.'] J[. The ^. said. That the books of Scripture are principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved. ^. Why, but did I say that this principle, — the books of Scrip- § 17. ture are the word of God, — is to be supposed as needing no proof at all to a natural man ? or to a man newly entering upon the faith ? yea, or perhaps to a doubter, or weakling in the faith ? Can you think me so weak ? It seems you do. But sure I know there is a great deal of difference between ethnics that deny and deride the Scripture and men that are born in the Church. The first have a further way about to this principle ; the other in their very Christian education suck it in, and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it, that the books, commonly caUed the Bible or Scripture, are the word of God. And I dealt with you as with a Christian,! though in error, whUe you call CathoUc. The !Dixi sicut ei congruebat, ad quem Retractat. Ub. i. cap. 13. [Op., tom. scribebam. [I spoke as if he to whom i. col. 20. E.] I wrote agreed with it.] — S. Augustin. 134 Scripture a supposed principle t Chapter words before spoken by me were, "That the Scripture alone, not ^!- J any unwritten tradition, was the foundation of faith." The ques tion between us and you is, " Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of faith?" Now in this question, as in aU nature and art, the subject, the Scripture, is and must be sup posed : ^ the query between the Roman Catholics and the Church of England being only of tbe predicate, the thing uttered of it, namely, whether it contain all fundamentals of faith, all necessaries for salvation within it? Now since the question, proposed in very form of art, proves not, but supposes the subject,^ I think I gave a satisfying answer. That to you and me, and in this question. Scripture was a supposed principle, and needed no proof And I must tell you, that in this question of the Scripture's perfect continent, it is against all art, yea, and equity too, in reasoning to call for a proof of that here, which must go unavoidably supposed in this question. And if any man will be so familiar with impiety to question it, it must be tried in a preceding question and dis pute by itself Yet here not you only, but Bellarmine* and others, run quite out of the way to snatch at advantage. Jf. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my reply against Mr. John White : wherein I plainly showed that this answer was not good, and that no other answer could be made, but by admitting some word of God unwritten to assure us of this point. § 18. ^. I. Indeed here you read out of a book, which you called your own, a large discourse upon this argument. But surely I so untied the knot of the argument that I set you to your book again. For yourself confess tbat against tbis you read what you bad formerly written. Well, whatever you read there, certain it ' Nor is it such a strange thing to ject ; the subject itself we do not hear that Scripture is such a supposed question. ] principle among Christians. Quod a * Quarto, necesse est [nosse, extare Scriptura evidenter deducitur, est libros aliquos vere divinos, quod certe evidenter verum, suppositis Scripturis. nullo modo ex Scripturis haberi pos- [What is evidently deduced from set. Fourthly, it is necessary we Scripture is evidently true, if the should know that there are in exist- Scripturesaretrue.]- Bellarm.fl'eAc,:/. ence some really divine books; and Milit. Ub. iv. [i.e. de notis Ecclesiae,] this certainly cannot be got out ofthe cap. 3. § 3. [0/., tom. ii. col. 167. Scriptures. — Bellarmin.] de verbo C] Dei. lib. iv. cap. 4. [Op., tom. i. col. ^De subjecto enim quaeritur sem- 175. B.] And the Jesuit here, apud per ; non subjectum ipsum. [For we A. C. p. 49. are always questioning about the sub- When Christians discuss together 135 is you do a great deal of wrong to Mr. Hooker ^ and myself, that, section because we call it a supposed or presumed principle among xvin. Christians, you should fall by and by into such a metaphysical discourse^ to prove, that that which is d>. praecognitum^ foreknown in science, must be of such light that it must be known of and by itself alone ; and that the Scripture cannot be so known to be the word of God. II. I will not now enter again into that discourse, having said enough already, how far the beam, which is very glorious, especi aUy in some parts of Scripture, gives light to prove itself. You see neither Hooker, nor I, nor the Church of England, for aught I know, leave the Scripture alone to manifest itself by the light which it hath in itself No ; but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way, like a preparing morning light to sun shine, then, indeed, we settle for our direction, but not upon the first opemng of the morning light, but upon the sun itself. Nor will I make needless inquiry how far, and in what manner, a praecognitum, or supposed principle in any science, may be proved in a higher, to which that is subordinate or accepted in a prime : nor how it may in divinity, where prae- as well as post-cognita, things fore-, as well as after-, known, are matters, and under the manner of faith, and not of science strictly : nor whether a. prae cognitum, a pre-supposed principle in faith, which rests upon divine authority, must needs have as much and equal light to natural reason, as prime principles have in nature, while they rest upon ^[Eccl. Polit.] Book in. chap. vui. sum, unde argumenta ducantur : Sect. 14. ubi sup. -p. 104.] [denique esse gladium spiritualem, ^WhereasBellarmine says expressly, qui in hoc certamine recusari non that in the controversies between you possit. Before all these questions, and us : non de metaphysicis subtilita- we must first consider the controversy tibus, quae sine periculo ignorari, et about the Word of God. For no interdum etiam cum laude oppugnari dispute can be conducted unless we possunt, etc. [Itisnoquestionofmeta- first find some common ground with physical subtleties, of which we can be our adversaries ; but all heretics agree ignorant without danger, and which we entirely with us in this, that the Word can sometimes attack with applause.] of God is the rule of faith, by which — Bellarm. Prafat. Operibus prafix. dogmas must be decided : this is the § 3. [Op., tom. i.] common ground of principle admitted '[Porro] his omnibus quaestionibus by all, and from this our arguments prasmittenda erit controversia de can be drawn — in short, this is the verbo Dei. Neque enim disputari spiritual sword which none can reject potest, nisi prius in aliquo communi in this contest.] — Bellarmin. Prcefat. principio cum adversariis convenia- Operibus prafix. § ult. [Op., tom. mus: convenit autem inter nos et i.] And Hit he commune principium omnes omnino haereticos, verbum Dei ab omnibus concessum, then I hope it esse regulam fidei, ex qua de dog- must be taken as a thing supposed, or matibus judicandum sit : esse com- as a praecognitum, in this dispute be- mune principium ab omnibus conces- tween us. 136 Some principles must be supposed [Chapter reason : nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient ^'¦^ light because not equal. Your own school grants, "That in us, which are the subjects both of faith and knowledge, and in regard of the evidence given in unto us, tbere is less light, less evidence in the principles of faith, than in the principles of knowledge, upon which there can be no doubt." ^ But I think the school will never grant that the principles of faith, even this in question, have not sufficient evidence. And you ought not to do, as you did, without any distinction, or any limitation, deny a praecog nitum, or prime principle in the faith, because it answers not in all things to the prime principles in science, in their light and evidence ; — a thing in itself directly against reason. III. Well, though I do none of this, yet first I must tell you that A. C. here steps in again and tells me, "That though a praecognitum in faith need not be so clearly known as a prae cognitum- in science, yet there must be this proportion between them, that, whether it be in science or in faith, the praecognitum, or thing supposed as known, must be prius cognitum, first known, and not need another thing pertaining to that faith or knowledge to be known before it. But the Scripture, saith be, needs tradi tion to go before it, and introduce the knowledge of it. Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a praecognitum, and a thing fore-known." Truly I am sorry to see in a man very learned such wilful mistakes. For A. C. cannot but perceive, by that which I have clearly laid down before,^ that I intended not to speak precisely of a praecognitum in this argument : but when I said, " Scriptures were principles to be supposed," I did not, I could not, intend, they were prius cognitce, known before tradition ; since I confess everywhere that tradition introduces the knowledge of them. But my meaning is plain — that the Scriptures are and must be principles supposed, before you can dispute this question, " Whether the Scriptures contain in them all things necessary to salvation." !" Before which question it must necessarily be sup- * CoUigituraperte ex Thom. [Aquin. ^ Sect xvii. xviU. No. 2. [ubi suf. Summ.] par. I. Q[uEest] i. A[rt.] 5. p. 133, and p. 135.] [Migne, i. 463.] Articulorum fidei !"> And my immediate words in the Veritas non potest nobis esse evidens Conference, upon which the Jesuit absolute. [It is an evident conclusion asked. How I knew Scripture to be from St. Thomas' writings that " the Scripture? were (as the Jesuit himself truth of the articles of faith cannot be relates it, apud A. C. p. 48.) "That absolutely evident to us. "]-Bellarmin. the Scripture only, not any unwritten de notis Ecclesia, lib. iv. cap. 3. § 2. tradition, was the foundation of our [Op., tom. ii. col. 167. C] faith," Now the Scripture cannot be In faith as in science 137 posed and granted on both sides, that the Scriptures are the word Section of God. For if they be not, it is instantly out of all question, xviii. that they cannot include all necessaries to salvation. So it is a praecognitum, not to tradition, as A. C. would cunningly put upon the cause, but to the whole question of the Scriptures' sufficiency. And yet if he could tie me to a praecognitum in this very question, and provable in a superior science, I think I shall go very near to prove it in the next paragraph, and entreat A. C. to confess it too. IV. And now having told A. C. this, I must secondly follow him a little further. For I would fain make it appear as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made, what wrong he doth truth and himself in this case. And it is the common fault of them aU. For when the Protestants answer to this argument — which, as I have showed, can properly have no place in the question between us about tradition — they !! which grant this as a praecognitum, a thing foreknown — as also I do — were neither ignorant nor forget ful that things presupposed, as already known, in a science, are of two sorts : for either they are plain and fuUy manifest in their own light ; or they are proved and granted already, some former knowledge having made them evident. This principle then — the ( Scriptures are the oracles of God — we cannot say is clear, and \ fully manifest to all men simply, and in self-light, for the reasons \ before given. . Yet we say, after tradition hath been our in troduction, the soul that hath but ordinary grace added to ', reason, may discern light sufficient to resolve our faith that the ¦ sun is there. This principle, then, being not absolutely and simply evident in itself, is presumed to be taught us otherwise. And if otherwise, then it must be taught in and by some superior science, to which Theology is subordinate. Now men may be apt to think, out of reverence, that Divinity can have no science above it. But your own school teaches me that it hath. " The sacred doctrine of Divinity in this sort is a science, because it proceeds out of principles that are known by the light of a superior knowledge, which is the knowledge of God and the the only foundation of faith, if it con- principles supposed, and praecognita, tain not all things necessary to salva- before the handling of this ques tion ; which the Church of Rome, tion. denying against all antiquity, makes '"^ Hooker, [Eccl. Polit.] Book iii. it now Become a question. And in chap. viU. [Sect. 14. ubi sup. p. 104, regard to this, my answer was, That and p. 135.] the Scriptures are and must be 138 The Scriptures come from Moses [ Chapter VI. ] blessed in heaven."!^ In this superior science this principle — the Scriptures are the oracles of God — is more than evident in full light. This superior science delivered this principle in full re vealed light to the Prophets and Apostles : this infallible light of this principle made their authority derivatively divine.!^ By the same divine authority they wrote, and delivered the Scripture to the Church : therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture, and that uncorrupt, though not in the same clear ness of light which tbey had. And yet, since no sufficient reason hath [been], or can be, given, that in any substantial thing it hath been corrupted,!* jj remains firm at this day, and that proved in ^^ Hoc raodo sacra doctrina est scientia ; quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum. [Qnde sicut musica credit principia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita doc trina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a Deo. The Sacred Doctrine is a science in this way ; becau.se it pro ceeds from principles which are known by the light of a higher science, that is the science of God and of His saints in bliss. So just as music accepts principles delivered to it by arith metic, so the Sacred Doctrine accepts principles revealed to it by God.] — Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. i. Q[usst] i. A[rt] 2. [Migne, i. 460.] — And what says A. C. now to this of Aquinas? Is it not clear in him that this principle. The Scriptures are the word of God, of divine and most infallible credit, is a praecognitum in the knowledge of Divinity, and prov able in a superior science, namely, the knowledge of God and the blessed in heaven? Yea, so clear, that, as I told you he would, A. C. confesses it, p. 51. But he adds: "That because no man ordinarily sees this proof, therefore we must go either to Christ, Who saw it clearly ; or to the Apost les, to whom it was clearly revealed ; or to them who by succession received it from the prime seers." So now because Christ is ascended, and the Apostles gone into the number of the blessed, and made in a higher degree partakers of tlieir knowledge ; there fore we must now only go unto their successors, and borrow light from the tradition of the present Church. For that we must do ; and it is so far well. But that we must ' ' rely upon this tradition, as divine and infaUible, and able to breed in us divine and in falUble faith," as A. C. adds, pp. 51, 52, is a proposition, which, in the times of the primitive Churcb, would have been accounted very dangerous, as indeed it is. For I would fain know why leaning too rauch upon tradition may not mislead Christians, as well as it did the Jews. But they, saith St. Hilary, Traditionis favore legis praecepta transgressi sunt. [By means of tradition they have broken the commands of the Law.]— [S. Hilar.] Canon, xiv. in S. Matth. [xv. 13. (al. Comment, in S. Matth. cap. xiv. 1.) Op., col. 685. A. ed. Bene dict. ] — Yet to this height are they of Rome now grown, that the traditions of the present Church are infallible : and by out-facing the truth, lead many after them. And as it 'k, fer. v. 31, ' ' The prophets prophesy untruths, and the priests receive gifts, and My people delight therein : what wUl be corae of this in the end ? " '^Non creditur Deus esse auctor hujus scientiae, quia homines hoc tes- tati sint in quantum homines nudo testimonio humano, sed in quantum circa eos effulsit virtus divina, et ita Deus eis, et sibi ipsi in eis, testi monium perhibuit. [God is not be lieved to be the author of this science, because men have testified to it by their bare human testimony ; but because divine virtue shone forth round them ; and so God bears witness to them and to Himself in them.]— Henr. a Gand. Summ. p[ar.] i. A[rt] ix. Q[u£est.] 3. [§ 13. p. 180.] " Corrumpi non possunt, quia in manibus sunt omnium Christianorum . . . quisquis [enim] hoc primitus ausus The Prophets and the Apostles 139 the most supreme science ; and therefore now to be supposed, at Section least by all Christians, that the Scripture is the word of God. So xvm. my answer is good, even in strictness, that this principle is to be supposed in this dispute. V. Besides, the Jews never had, nor can have, any other proof that the Old Testament is the word of God, than we have of the New. For theirs was delivered by Moses and the Prophetsi and ours was delivered by the Apostles, which were Prophets too. The Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine authority; for so the Jews argue themselves : " We know that God spake with John ix. 29. Moses." And that, therefore, they could no more err in follow ing Moses, than they could in following God Himself.!^ And Our Saviour seems to infer as much, where He expostulates with the Jews thus : " If you believe not Moses his writings, how John v. 47. should you believe Me ? " Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses? How? why, apparently the same way that is before set down. First, By tradition. So St. Chrysostom : "We know why : By whose witness do you know ? By the testimony of our ancestors."!^ But he speaks not of their immediate ancestors, but their prime, which were Prophets, and whose testimony was divine; into which, namely their writings, the Jews did resolve their faith. And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a " Ught," and a " shining light," too ; and, therefore, could not but be 2 Pet. i. 19. sufficient when tradition had gone before. And yet, though the Jews entered this way to their beUef of the Scripture, they do not say, " Audivimus, We have heard that God spake to Moses," but, " We know it."!" So they resolved their faith higher, and into a esset, multorum codicura vetustiorum [Op., tom. viii. col. 459. D. ubi sup. coUatione confutaretur : maxirae, quia p. 106, note 30.] non una Ungua, sed multis, Scriptura ^* Maldonat[us, Comment.] in S. contineretur. NonnuUae autem codi- Joann. ix. [29]. Itaque non magis cum mendositates, vel de antiquiori- errare posse eum sequentes, quam si bus, vel de Ungua praecedente, emen- Deum Ipsum sequerentur. [And so dantur. [They cannot be corrupted, they could no more err in following because they are in every Christian's him (Moses) than if they were foUow- hands ; and the man who first darefl ing God Himself] to do this would be confuted by the !*[S. Chrysostom.] Hom. Ivii. in comparison of many more ancient S. Johann ix. [29. Hom. Iviii. Op., copies; and most of all because the tom. viU. p. 340. Q,.]ijp.eis otSap£v[iTi Scripture is found not in one tongue Maiire? XeXdXijKev b Bebs.] tIvos elirbv- but in many. But we can put riyht tos ; [tLvos dirayyeiXavTos ;] twv irpoyb- some mistakes which exist in the vwv, (prjal, tui' TjixeTepwv. [We know copies, either from other copies, or that God spake unto Moses ; who told out of the earlier language, from which us ? who declared it to us ? be replies, the translation was made.] — S. Augus- our fathers have told us.] tin. lib. xxxii. cont. Faustum, c. 16. '^S. Chrysostom. ubi supra: Kal ovk I40 History bears witness to the fact [Chapter more inward principle, than an ear to their immediate ancestors ^'•1 and their tradition. And I would willingly learn of you, if you can show it me, wherever any one Jew, disputing with another about their Law, did put the other to prove that the Old Testa ment was the word of God. But they still supposed it. And when others put them to their proof, this way they went. And yet you say : § 19- Jf. That no other answer could be made, but by admitting some word of God unwritten, to assure us of this point. ^. I think I have showed that my answer is good, and that no other answer need be made. If tbere were need, I make no question but another answer might be made to assure us of this point, though we did not admit of any word of God unwritten. I say, to assure us ; and you express no more. If you had said, " to assure us by Divine faith," your argument had been the stronger. But if you speak of assurance only in the general, I must then teU you — and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against infidels — a man may be assured, nay infaUibly assured by ecclesiastical and human proof Men that never saw Rome, may be sure and infallibly believe that such a city there is, by historical and acquired faith. And if consent of human story can assure me this, why should not consent of Churcb story assure me the other, that Christ and His Apostles delivered this body of Scripture as the oracles of God ? For Jews, enemies to Christ, they bear witness to the Old Testament ; and Christians, through almost all nations, give in evidence to both Old and New.!' ^nd no Pagan, or other enemies of Christianity, can give such a worthy and consenting testimony for any authority upon which e'lirav, ijp.els TjKo6aap,ev, [Sti MwaeZXe- que rerum pleni, prope totius generis XdXTjKev b Bebs,] dXX' Uti otSafiev. [And humaniconfessionediffamantui. These they did not say that we heard God Books which, whatever they are, at spake to Moses, but that we know.] all events are holy, and full of divine !* Tanta hominum et temporum matters, are published abroad by the consensione firmatum. [Confirmed by agreement of almost the whole human so large an agreement of men and race.] — S. Augustin. de util. credendi, years.] — S. Augustin. lib. de moribus cap. vii. [Op., tom. viii. col. 56. B.] Eccles. Cathol. [et Manich. lib. i.] — S. Augustin. contra Faustum, lib. cap. 29. [Op., tom. i. col. 707. F.] xiU. cap. 15. [Op., tom. viu. col. — Eos libros, qui quoquo modo 260. A. B.] se habent, sancti tamen divinarum- That Scripture is authentic 141 they rely, or almost for any principle which they have, as the Section Scripture hath gained to itself And as is the testimony, which it "¦'¦^^ receives "above all writings of all nations,"!' so here is assurance in a great measure, without any divine authority, in a word written or unwritten. A great assurance, and it is infallible too ; only then we must distinguish infallibUity. For, first, a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief, when it is true and remains so : for truth, qua talis, as it is truth, cannot deceive. Secondly, a thing is said to be infallible, when it is not only true, and remains so, actually, but when it is of such invariable constancy, and upon such ground, as that no degree of falsehood at any time, in any respect, can fall upon it. Certain it is that by human authority, consent, and proof, a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the word of God, by an acquired habit of faith, cui non subest falsum, " under which nor error nor falsehood is" : but he cannot be assured infallibly by di\'ine faith, cui subesse non potest falsum, " into which no falsehood can come," but by a divine testimony.^" This testimony is absolute in Scripture itself, delivered by tbe Apostles for the word of God, and so sealed to our souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost. That which makes way for this, as an introduction and outward motive,^! is the tradition of the present Church ; but tbat neither simply divine, nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our faith, but only as is before ^^ expressed. II. And now to come close to the particular. The time was, before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ — which I think no true Christian can look upon but with a bleeding heart — that you and we were all of one belief. That belief was tainted, in !' Super omnes omnium gentium Doctrinal Fidei, tom. i. lib. 2. art. ii. Uteras. [Above aU the literature of all dap. 20. [No. 3. fol. 102. col. I. ed. the nations.] — S. A-agastin. de civitate Paris. 1532.] Vei, Ub. xi. cap. I. [Op., tom. vii. ^^ Canus, Loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. col. 271. D. Migne, vu. 315.] 8. facit Ecclesiam causam sine quanon. ^ Incertum [ergo] esse non potest hos [Makes the Church the cause sine qua esse libros canonicos, [et habere pon- non. His words are : Non est enim dus auctoritatis suk, quibus Ecclesia Ecclesise auctoritas ratio per se prorsus declarata per omnes gentes, et ab ad credendum, sed causa sine qua non apostolis propagata, testimonium cer- crederemus. For the Church's autho- tum reddit. There can be no ques- rity is not simply the reason which tion that these are Canonical Books, conducts us to beUef, but the cause andhavethe weight of their authority, (sine qua non) without which we since the Church, proclaimed through should not beUeve. — P. 59. ed. Lovan. every nation and spread abroad by 1569.] die Apostles, gives her unwavering ^ Sect. xvi. [No. 6. ubi sup. p. testimony to them. — Thom.] Waldens. 76. ] 142 Before the rent in the Church began [Chapter tract and Corruption of times, very deeply. A division was made, ^'¦' yet so that both parts held the Creed, and other common principles of belief Of these this was one of the greatest, " That the Scripture is the word of God " : ^^ for our belief of all things contained in it depends upon it. Since this division there hath been nothing done by us to discredit this principle. Nay, we have given it all honour, and ascribed unto it more sufficiency, even to the " containing of all things necessary to salvation," with satis superque ;2* enough and more than enough : which yourselves have not done, do not. And for begetting and settiing a belief of this principle, we go tbe same way with you and a better besides. The same way with you ; because we allow the tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing motive to embrace this principle : only we cannot go so far in this way as you, to make the present tradition always an infalUble word of God unwritten ; for this is to go so far in till you be out of the way. For tradition is but a lane in the Church : it hath an end, not only to receive us in, but another after, to let us out into more open and richer ground. And we go a better way than you; because after we are moved, and prepared, and induced by tradition, we resolve our faith into that written word, and God delivering it : in which we find materially, though not in terms, the very tradition that led us thither. And so we are sure by divine authority that we are in the way, because at the end we find the way proved. And do what can be done, you can never settle the faith of man about this great principle, till you rise to greater assurance than the present Church alone can give. And therefore once again to that known place of St Augustine. ^^ The words of the Father are. Nisi commoveret, "unless the authority of the Church moved me " ; but not alone, but with other motives : else it were not commovere, " to move together." And the other motives are resolvers, though tbis be leader. Now, since we go the same way with you, so far as you go right; ^ Sic in alia causa, S. Augustinus : 24 yin. Lirinens. contra Hceres. cap. inter omnes pene constet, aut certe, ii. [p. 5. Vincentius goes on to show id quod satis est, inter me atque illos the need of the Church as an inter- cum quibus nunc agitur hoc conveniat. preter of Scripture, for pfene quot [So on another subject St. Augustine homines sunt, tot illinc sententiae. says ; nearly everyone agrees ; at all There are nearly as many opinions as events, and this is all we want, I and there are men.] those with whom I am now dealing ™ Contr. Epist. Fund. cap. v. [ubi agree.] — De moribus Eccl. Cathol. sup. p. 94. note i.] [et Manichaor. Ub. i.] cap. 4. [Op., tom. i. col. 689. F.] The Scriptures were held infallible 143 and a better way than you, where you go wrong ; we need not Section admit any other word of God than we do. And this ought to ^"^' remain as a pre-supposed principle among all Christians, and not so much as come into this question, about the sufficiency of Scripture, between you and us. [CHAPTER VII. The Church of Rome is not "the True Church" ; and is not "a Right Church." [Chaptek The Countess of Buckingham begins to feel despondent as to an vil.i agreement between the two disputants; and no doubt the discussion has got now far beyond her depth . She tries once more to put some quite practical question which should settle the whole difficulty. Her sympathies are on the side of Rome ; and she carries out the Jesuit's advice by making an enquiry apparently innocent enough, " Was the Roman Church the right Church before Luther?" If Laud should agree on this with Fisher, she will have something to go upon. The question is one which needs to be so exactly defined that it is no wonder misunderstandings immediately arose as to how much was actually accepted by both sides ; and as, we shall see. Laud and Fisher differ widely when they describe what was said. The position taken up by Archbishop Laud gave great offence to the English Puritans. They considered Rome to be Antichrist, and fiercely resented the Archbishop's moderation. Dr. HaU, the Calvinist Bishop of Exeter and afterwards of Norwich, was also blamed for a like liberal treatment of the Roman Church. Summary of the Chapter. The Church of Rome can be acknowledged to be " a true Church^' because it receives the Scriptures and the Sacraments : but it is a corrupt Church. In some things it is right, in some things it is wrong. Rome was not " the true Church " before Luther; it was then corrupt and tainted. The separation was not the fault of the Protestants, who are not so called for protesting against the Church of Rome, but for pro testing against the Roman errors and superstitions. They were thrust away from connection with Rome by her act of excommunication. Two passages quoted by Fisher from St. Bernard and from Sl. Augustine are then examined and do not apply blame to the Protestants. Abuses in disputation 145 The Faith is Catholic, not merely Roman. The whole Church cannot Section fall into deadly e-rror, it is true. It may err partially but not totally xx. for " the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" Rome was the first cause of the separation : and as for the Council of Trent, the Roman invitation to the Protestants to attend it, was merely with the intention of entrapping and destroying thcTn (as in the case of Huss at Constance). The English Church seeks peace and truth. And though corruption of manners would not be enough alone to justify separation, corruption of doctrine is a sufficient cause. And as a General Council could not be obtained, each National Church had to reform itself. Many instances can be found of reforms in Provincial Councils, and these are adduced and considered^] But you say that Jf. From this the Lady called us, and desiring to hear, ja c. p. 53. whether the ^. would grant the Roman Church to be the I right Church, the ^. granted that it was. ^. I. One occasion, which moved Tertullian to write his book § 20. de Praescript. adversus Hizreticos, was, that he saw little or no profit come by disputations.! Sure the ground was the same then and now. It was not to deny that disputation is an opening of the understanding, a sifting out of truth : it was not to affirm that any such disquisition is in and of itself unprofitable. If it had, St. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians, nor Acts vi. g. St. Paul with the Grecians, first, and then with the Jews and all Acts ix. 29. comers. No sure : it was some abuse in the disputants that Acts xix. 17. frustrated the good of the disputation. And one abuse in the disputants is "a resolution to hold their own, though it be by unworthy means, and disparagement of truth." ^ And so I find it here : for as it is true that this question was asked, so it is altogether false that it was asked in this form, or so answered.^ There is a great deal of difference, especially as Romanists handle 1 the question of the Church, between the Church and a Church ; j and there is some between a true Church and a right Church, } ' [Adversus hsreticos Tertullianus], itself into such subtleties.] — Senec. videns disputationibus nihU aut parum £/z>/. xlviii. [ not have unity, might he have it with truth. But I never said, nor thought, " that the Protestants made this rent." The cause \of the schism is yours : for you thrust us from you, because we paUed for truth and redress of abuses. For a schism i* must needs be theirs, whose the cause of it is. The woe runs full out Matt.xviii.7. ofthe mouth of Christ, ever against " him that gives the offence''; not against him that takes it, ever. But you have, by this car riage, given me just cause, never to treat with you, or your lUce, but before a judge or a jury. A. c. pp. 55. II. But here A. C. teUs me, " I had no cause to be angry, either with the Jesuit or myself. Not with the Jesuit, for he writ down my words in fresh memory, and upon ^special notice taken of the passage, and that I did say either iisdem, or cequipollerdibus verbis, ' either in these or equivalent words,' That the Protestants did make the rent or division from the Roman Church." What, did the Jesuit set down my words in fresh memory, and upon special notice taken, and were they so few as these, "The Pro testants did make the schism"; and yet was his memory so short, that he cannot tell, whether I uttered this iisdem, or cequipollenti- A. c. p. 57. bus verbis ? Well, I would A. C. and his fellows would leave this art of theirs, and in Conferences, which they are so ready to call for, impose no more upon other men than they utter. And you may observe too, that after all this full assertion. That I spake A. c. p. 55- this iisdem, or cequipollentibus verbis, A. C. concludes thus : " The Jesuit took special notice in fresh memory, and is sure he related, at least in sense, just as it was uttered." What is this, " at least in sense just as it was uttered ? " Do not these two interfere, and '^Hanc, qus respectu hominum any offence that way. I shall only Ecclesia dicitur, observare, ejusque draw the general argument from it, communionem colere debemus. [We thus : If the orthodox did well in ought to treat this body, which in the departing from the Arians, then the regard of men is styled the Church, schism was to be imputed to the with respect, and to cultivate com- Arians; although the orthodox did munion with it]— Calvin. Instit. [lib. not depart from them. Otberwise if iv.] cap. I. [Op., tom. vui. p. 272.] the orthodox had been guUty of the " Recte [igitur] scias nos fecisse, schisra, he could not have said, recte recedendo a vobis. [Know that we scias nos fecisse recedendo. For it acted rightly in leaving you.]— Lucif. cannot be that a man should do weU [Calaritan.] libello de non conveniendo in making a schism. There maybe cum hareticis. [Max. Bibl. Patrum, therefore a necessary separation, which tom. iv. p. 222. E. ed. Lugd. 1677.] yet incurs not the blame of schism; He speaks of the Arians, and I shall and that is, when doctrines are taught not compare you with them, nor give contrary to the Catholic faith. Made the great Schism 153 shew the Jesuit to be upon his shuffling pace? For if it were Section "just as it was uttered," then it was in the very form of words too, •''^''' not in "sense" only. And if it were but "at least in sense," then when A. C. hath made the most of it, it was not "just as it was uttered." Besides, "at least in sense," doth not tell us in whose sense it was. For if A. C. mean the Jesuit's sense of it, he may make what sense he pleases of his own words ; but he must impose no sense of his upon my words. But as he must leave my words to myself, so when my words are uttered or written, he must leave their sense either to me, or to that genuine con stmction which an ingenuous reader can make of them. And what my words of grant were, I have before expressed, and their sense too. III. " Not with myself" : that is the next. For A. C. says, " It a. c. p. 56. is truth, and that the world knows it, that the Protestants did depart from the Church of Rome, and got the name of Pro testants, by protesting against it.'' No, A. C, by your leave, this is not truth neither ; and therefore I had reason to be angry with myself, had I granted it. For, first, the Protestants did not depart : for departure is voluntary, so was not theirs. I say, not theirs, taking their whole body and cause together. For that some among them were peevish, and some ignorantly zealous, is neither to be doubted, nor is there danger in confessing it. Your body is not so perfect, I wot well, but tbat many amongst you are as pettish, and as ignorantly zealous, as any of ours. You must not suffer for these, nor we for those ; nor should the Church of Christ for either. Next, the Protestants did not get that name by protesting against the Church of Rome, but by protesting (and that when nothing else would serve) against her errors and super- I stitions.*^ Do you but remove them from the Church of Rome, * '^Conventus ordinum Imperii Spirae Innovators (so it was decided to call celebratur. In quo decretum factum, them), and that everything should be ut Edictum Wormatiense observetur restored to its former condition ; (and contra Novatores, (sic appellare so there would be no Reformation at placuit), et ut omnia in integrum all). Against this edict the Elector restituantur, (et sic nulla omnino John, etc. made a solemn protest ; reformatio). Contra hoc Edictum this was the beginning of the wide- [Elector Johannes et Landgravius et spread name of Protestants]. — Se[thi] aUi] die i6. ApriUs a.d. 1529, so- Calvisii [opus] [Chron[ologicum,] ad lenniter protestantur : hine ortum An. 1529. [pp. 920, 921. ed. Francof. pervulgatum Ulud Protestantium 1685.] This protestation, therefore, nomen. [A meeting of the Orders of was not simply against the Roman the Empure was held at Spires. Here Church,butagainsttheedict,whichwas a decree was made that the Edict of for the restoring of all things to their Worms should be observed gainst the former estate, without any reformation. 154 Origin of name Protestant [Chapter and our Protestation is ended, and the separation too. Nor is vii.] Protestation itself such an unheard of thing in the very heart of reUgion. For the sacraments botb of the Old and New Testa ments are called by your own school, " visible signs protesting the faith." Now if the sacraments he protestantia, "signs protestmg," why may not men also, and without all offence, be called Pro- testants,!^ since by receiving the true sacraments, and by refusing them which are corrupted, they do but protest the sincerity of their faith against that doctrinal corruption, which hath invaded the great sacrament of the Eucharist, and other parts of reUgion ? Especially, since they are men,i^ which must protest their faith by these visible signs and sacraments. A. c. p. 56. IV. But A. C. goes on, and will needs have it, that the Pro testants were the cause of the schism. " For," saith he, " though the Cburch of Rome did thrust them from her by excommunica tion, yet they had first divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching opinions contrary to the Roman faith and practice of the Churcb ; which to do, St. Bernard ^^ thinks is pride, and St. Augustine madness." So then, in bis opinion. First, excommuni cation on their part was not the prime cause of this division ; but the " holding and teaching of contrary opinions." Why, but then in my opinion, that " holding and teaching was " not the prime cause neither, but the corruptions and superstitions of Rome, which forced many men to hold and teach the contrary. So the prime cause was theirs still. Secondly, A. C.'s words are very considerable. For he charges the Protestants to be the authors of the schism, for "obstinate holding and teaching contrary opinions." To what, I pray? Why, to the Roman faith. i' To i^[The name was given to the preached a Crusade in 1146; died in Gerraan Party who protested against a 1 1 53. ] decree of the Diet of Spires and tbe '* I know Bellarmine, [de Rom. Emperor Charles V. in 1529. The Pont. lib. iv. cap. 4. § 3.] quotes St. chief points of their Protest were Jerome : Scito Romanam fidem, etc. against (i) the Popish Mass, (2) the [ubi] supra. Sect. iu. No. 9. [p. 11. refusal of the Cup to the Laity, (3) note 26.] But there St. Jerome doth equalling Tradition with Scripture.] not call it Fidem Romanam, as if " Quibus homo fidem suam protes- Fides Romana and Fides Catholica taretur [de futuro Salvatoris adventu.] were convertible ; but he speaks of it [Signs by which a man might protest in the concrete, Romana Fides, i.e. his faith, in the future coming of a Romanorum Fides, quae laudata fuit Saviour.] — Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] ab Apostolo, etc. Rom. i. 8. — S. par. iu. Q[v£est.] Ixi. A[rt.] 3. [in Hieron. Apol. cont. Ruffin. Ub. in. respons.] [Op., tom. iv. par. U. col. 449. ed. ^'[Founder of the Abbey of Clair- Benedict.] That is, that faith which vaux ; one of the early Cistercian was then at Rome when St. Paul corn- Monks ; reasoned against Abelard ; mended it. But the Apostle's com- A National Church may coinplain 155 the Roman faith ? It was wont to be the Christian faith, to which Section contrary opinions were so dangerous to the maintainers. But all '^^^• is Roman now with A. C. and the Jesuit. And then to counten ance the business, St. Bernard and St. Augustine are brought in ; whereas neither of them speak of the Roman, and St. Bernard perhaps neither of the CathoUc nor the Roman, but ofa particular. Church or congregation. Or if he speak of the CathoUc, of the Roman certainly he doth not. His words are, Quce. major superbia, etc. "What greater pride, than that one man should prefer his judgment before the whole congregation of all the Christian churches in the world ? " So A. C. as out of St. Bernard. But St. Bernard not so.^" For tbese last words, "of all the Christian churches in the world," are not in St. Bernard. And whether toti congregationi imply more in that place than a parti cular Church, is not very manifest. Nay, I think it is plain, that he speaks both of, and to, that particular congregation, to which he was then preaching. And I believe A. C. will not easily find where tota congregatio, "the whole congregation," is used in St Bernard, or any other of the Fathers, for the whole Catholic Church of Christ. And howsoever the meaning of St. Bernard be, it is one thing for a private man, judicium suum praef erre, to prefer and so follow his private judgment before the whole congregation, which is indeed lepra proprii consilii, as St. Bernard there calls it, "the proud leprosy of the private spirit"; and quite another thing for an inteUigent man, and in some things unsatisfied, modestly to propose his doubts even to the Catholic Church. And much more may a whole national Church, nay, the whole body of the Protestants, do it. And for St. Augustine, the place alleged out of him is a known place ; and he speaks indeed of the whole Catholic Church ; and he says,^^ and he says it truly, " It is a part of most mending of it in the Romans at one col. 2. D. ed. Paris. 1551. Migne, time, passes no deed of assurance that ii. 290. ] it shall continue worthy of commend- ^i similiter etiam, si quid horum ations among the Romans through all tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia. time. Nam et hine quin ita faciendum sit ^'' Quae major superbia, quam ut unus disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. homo toti congregationi judicium [We ought to act in the same manner suum praeferat ; tanquam ipse solus also if any of them is a regular practise habeat spiritum Dei ? [What pride in the Church throughout the world. can be greater than for one man to For it would be the most utter mad- place his judgment before that of the ness to dispute that in that case it whole congregation; as if he alone should be done. ] — S. PiXaga.s'An. Epist. had the Spirit of God. And he cxviii. cap. 5. [Epist. Uv. seu, ad quotes I Kings xv. 22.]— S. Bernard. inquisitiones Januarii, lib. i. Op., tom. Serm. iii. de Resurrect, [fol. 35. ii. col. 126. B. Migne, ii. 202.] 156 Irenaeus and Pope Victor Chapter insolent madness for any man to dispute, whether that be to be ^"•1 done, which is usually done in, and through, the whole CathoUc Church of Christ." Where, first, here is not a word of the Roman Church, but of that which is tota per orbem, " all over the worid," A. c. p. 56. Catholic, which Rome never yet was. Secondly, A. C. applies this to the Roman faith, whereas St. Augustine speaks there expressly of the rites and ceremonies of the Church, and particu larly about the manner of offering upon Maundy-Thursday,^^ whether it be in the morning, or after supper, or both. Thirdly, it is manifest by the words themselves, that St. Augustine speaks of no matter of faith there, Roman nor CathoUc. Yo-t frequentat, and faciendum, are for "things done, and to be done,"^^ not for things believed, or to be believed. So here is not one word for the Roman faith in either of these places. And after this, I hope you wiU the less wonder at A. C.'s boldness. Lastly, a right sober man may, without the least touch of insolency or madness, dispute a business of reUgion witb the Roman either Church or prelate (as all men know Irenaeus did with Victor^*), so it be with modesty, and for the finding out or confirming of truth, free from vanity and purposed opposition against even a particular church. But in any other way to dispute tbe whole Catholic Church, is just that which St. Augustine calls it, " insolent madness." \ V. But now were it so, that the Churcb of Rome were i orthodox in all things, yet tbe faith, by the Jesuit's leave, is not ' simply to be called the Roman, but the Christian and the A c p 56,' Catholic faith. And yet A. C. wUl not understand this; but Roman and Catholic, whether Church or faith, must be one and ^Quaeris quid per quintam feriam 3. [Op., tom. i. col. 193. B.] And if ultimo hebdomadis Quadragesimae this be true, what is it to Rome ? fieri debeat, an offerendura sit mane ? ** Euseb. [Eccl. Hist.] lib. v. cap. etc. [Do you ask what should be 24. [apud Hist. Eccl. Script, tom. i. done through the fifth day of the p. 245, ed. Reading.] Et, [?us 0 r^s last week in Lent ; whether the 'PuipiTjs iirlffKOTros BlKTwp, Uperpa offering (Holy Communion) should be ffeppiavBels, dKoivwvrjtrlav rois ^i* Tg'Airlf made in the morning?] — S. Augustin. Te