Project Canterbury
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology
William Laud, Works, Volume Two
Conference with Fisher the Jesuit
Section 16
Transcribed by John D Lewis
AD 2001
Paragraph: | I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | Notes |
[70] cont’d
[SECTION XVI.]
F. I asked how * he knew Scripture to be Scripture, and in particular Genesis, Exodus, &c. These are believed to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any place of Scripture. The B. said, that the books of Scripture are principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved. [A.C. p. 49.]
* [The Jesuit did not ask this question as doubting of the divine authority of Scripture, but to make it seen, that beside Scripture, which the B. said was the "only" foundation of faith, there must be admitted some other foundation, to wit, "unwritten" tradition, and this of infallible authority, to assure us infallibly that these books are divine; which to be divine is one point infallibly believed by divine faith, and yet cannot be infallibly proved by "only" Scripture: therefore "only" Scripture cannot be said, as the B. said, to be the "only" foundation of faith, or of every point believed by faith. I hope the Chaplain, who is so careful to avoid all suspicion of being familiar with impiety, as he would have no question moved about this point upon any terms or pretence, will not be so impious as to say, That to believe these books to be divine Scripture, is not a point of divine faith; or that this point, being so important, as it is, to be most firmly believed, is believed by divine faith, without any ground or foundation; or without a sufficient infallible and divine foundation of God’s word, written or unwritten. Since therefore this is a point of faith, and hath a foundation, yea an infallible foundation, it is not against either art, or equity, or piety, for confutation of error, and confirmation o truth, to inquire what particular foundation of God’s word, written or unwritten, doth assure us infallibly that these particular books contain the sole and whole truth of God, believed by Christian faith. Neither need any be troubled, or endangered, by this question, but such as, not finding any sufficient foundation in God’s word written, de pertinaciously resolve not to believe any thing to be God’s word which is not written. Those that believe that there is a word of God, partly written and partly unwritten, according to that of S. Paul (2 Thess. ii.), "Hold the traditions, whether by our word, or epistle," de easily, and without too much turning in a wheel or circle, answer the question. See the reply to Mr. Wootton and M. White in the Introduction, of which mention is made in the Relation, where this and divers other important matters pertaining to the drift of this Conference are handled at large.—A.C. marg. note to p. 49.]
§ 16. B. I.—I did never love too curious a search into that which might put a man into a wheel, and circle him so long between proving Scripture by tradition, and tradition by Scripture, till the devil find a means to dispute him into infidelity, and make him believe neither. I hope this is no part of your meaning. Yet I doubt this question, "How de you know Scripture to be Scripture?"1 hath done more harm, than [71] 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,2 and is in itself a matter of such consequence, I will sift it a little further.
II.—Many men labouring to settle this great principle in divinity, have used divers means to prove it. All have not gone the same way, nor all the right way. You cannot be right, that resolve "faith of the Scriptures," being the "word of God," into "only tradition." For "only," and "no other" proof are equal. To prove the Scripture, therefore (so called by way of excellence), to be the word of God, there are several offers at divers proofs. For first, some fly to the testimony and witness of the Church, and her tradition which constantly believes, and unanimously delivers it. Secondly, some to the light and the testimony which the Scripture gives to 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 clears up the light that is in Scripture, and seals this 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 the 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 [72] other be converted, or "left without excuse;" and that is done by this very evidence.
III.—For the first: the "tradition of the Church," [Rom. i. 20.] 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 de this. For it may be further asked, Why we should believe the Church’s tradition? And if it be answered, We may believe, because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost; it may yet be demanded of you, How that may appear? And if this be demanded, either you must say, you have it by special revelation, which is the "private spirit" you object to other men, or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture,3 as all of you do. And that very offer, to prove it out of Scripture, is a sufficient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher proof than the Church’s tradition, which, in your own grounds, is or may be questionable till you come thither. Besides, this is an inviolable ground of reason: "That the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit than the conclusion itself."4 Therefore if the Articles of Faith, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the rest, be the conclusions, and the principles by which they are proved be only ecclesiastical tradition, it must needs follow, that the tradition of the Church is more infallible than the articles of the faith, if the faith which we have of the articles should be finally resolved into the veracity of the Church’s testimony. But this your learned and wary men deny5 and therefore I hope yourself dare not affirm.
[73]
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 rest upon the proper and formal object of the faith. But nothing can be more evident than this, That a man ought not to resolve his faith of this principle into the sole testimony of the Church. Therefore, neither is that testimony or tradition, alone, the formal object of faith. The learned of your own part grant this:6 [74] "Although in that article of the Creed, ‘I believe the, Catholic Church,’ peradventure all this be contained, ‘I believe those things which the Church teacheth,’ yet this is not necessarily understood, That I believe the Church teaching, as an infallible witness." And if they did not confess this, it were no hard thing to prove.V.—But here is the cunning of this device. All the authorities of Fathers, Councils, nay of Scripture too,7 though this be contrary to their own doctrine, must be finally resolved into the authority of the present Roman Church; and though they would seem to have us believe the Fathers and the Church of old, yet they will not have us take their doctrine from their own writings, or the decrees of councils: because, as they say, we cannot know by reading them what their meaning was, but from the infallible testimony of the present Roman Church teaching by tradition. Now, by this, two things are evident. First, That they ascribe as great authority, (if not greater,) to a part of the Catholic Church, as they do to the whole, which we believe in our Creed, and which is the society of all Christians. And this is full of absurdity, in nature, in reason, in all things, That any part8 should be of equal worth, power, credit, or [75] authority with the whole. Secondly, That in their doctrine concerning the infallibility of their Church, their proceeding is most unreasonable. For if you ask them, Why they believe their whole doctrine to be the sole true Catholic faith? their answer is, Because it is agreeable to the word of God, and the doctrine and tradition of the ancient Church. If you ask them, How they know that to be so? they will then produce testimonies of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers. But if you ask a third time, By what means they are assured, that these testimonies do indeed make for them and their cause? they will not then have recourse to text of Scripture, or exposition of Fathers, or phrase and propriety of language in which either of them were first written, or to the scope of the author, or the causes9 of the thing uttered, or the conference with like places,10 or the antecedents11 and consequents of the same places;12 or the exposition of the [76] dark and doubtful places of Scripture by the undoubted and manifest; with divers other rules given for the true knowledge and understanding of Scripture, which do frequently occur in S. Augustine.13 No, none of these, or the like helps: that, with them, were to admit a "private spirit," or to make way for it. But their final answer is: "They know it to be so, because the present Roman Church witnesseth it, according to tradition." So arguing primo ad ultimum, "from first to last," the present Church of Rome and her followers believe her own doctrine and tradition to be true and Catholic, because she professes it to be such. And if this be not to prove idem per idem, "the same by the same," I know not what is: which, though it be most absurd in all kind of learning, yet out of this I see not how it is possible to wind themselves, so long as the last resolution of their faith must rest, as they teach, upon the tradition of the present Church only.
VI.—It seems therefore to me very necessary,14 that we be able to prove the books of Scripture to be the Word of God, by some authority that is absolutely divine. For if they be warranted unto us by any authority less than divine, then all things contained in them, which have no [77] greater assurance than the Scripture, in which they are read, are not objects of divine belief. And that once granted will enforce us to yield, That all the articles of Christian belief have no greater assurance than human or moral faith or credulity can afford. An authority, then, simply divine, must make good the Scripture’s infallibility, at least in the last resolution of our faith in that point. This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church15 alone. For the Church consists of men subject to error; and no one of them, since the Apostles’ times, hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the Blessed Spirit, as to secure him from being deceived. And all the parts being all liable to mistaking, and fallible, the whole cannot possibly be infallible in and of itself, and privileged from being deceived in some things or other. And even in those fundamental things in which the whole universal Church neither doth nor can err, yet even there her authority is not Divine, because she delivers those supernatural truths by promise of assistance, yet tied to means; and not by any special immediate revelation, which is necessarily required to the very least degree of Divine authority. And therefore our worthies do not only say, but prove, "That all the Church’s constitutions are of the nature of human law."16 And some among you,17 not unworthy for their learning, prove it at large, "That all the Church’s testimony, or voice, or sentence,"—call it what you will,—"is but suo modo, or aliquo modo, ‘not simply, but in a manner,’ divine.’? Yea, and A.C. himself, after all his [78] debate, comes to that, and no further, "That the tradition of the Church is, at least in some sort, divine and infallible." [A.C. p. 51.] Now, that which is divine but in a sort or manner, be it the Church’s manner, is aliquo modo non divina, "in a sort not divine." But this great principle of faith, the ground and proof of whatsoever else is of faith, cannot stand firm upon a proof that is and is not—in a manner and not in a manner—divine; as it must, if we have no other anchor than the external tradition of the Church to lodge it upon, and hold it steady in the midst of those waves which daily beat upon it.
VII.—Now, here A.C. confesses expressly, "That to prove the books of Scripture to be divine, we must be warranted by that which is infallible." [A.C. p. 49.] He confesses farther, "That there can be no sufficient infallible proof of this, but God’s word, written or unwritten." [A.C. p. 50.] And he gives his reason for it: "Because if the proof be merely human and fallible, the science or faith which is built upon it can be no better." [A.C. p. 51.] So then this is agreed on by me, (yet leaving other men to travel by their own way, so be they can come to make Scripture thereby infallible,) That Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient, infallible, divine proof. And that such proof can be nothing but the word of God, is agreed on also by me. Yea, and agreed on for me it shall be likewise, that God’s word may be written and unwritten. For Cardinal Bellarmine18 tells us truly, that it is not the writing or printing, that makes Scripture the word of God; but it is the prime unerring essential truth, God Himself uttering and revealing it to His Church, that makes it verbum Dei, "the word of God." And this word of God is uttered to men, either immediately by God Himself, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and so it was to the Prophets and Apostles; or mediately,—either by Angels,19 to whom God had spoken first, and so the law was given,20 and so also the message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin,—or by the [79] Prophets21 and Apostles, and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church. But their being written, gave them no authority at all in regard of themselves: written or unwritten, the word was the same. But it was written that it might be the better preserved,22 and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully in our memories.23 And you have been often enough told, (were truth, and not the maintaining of a party, the thing you seek. for,) that if you will show us any such unwritten word of God delivered by His Prophets and Apostles, we will acknowledge it to be divine and infallible. So, written or unwritten, that shall not stumble us. But, then A.C. must not tell us, at least not think we shall swallow it into our belief, that everything which he says is the unwritten word of God, is so indeed.
VIII.—I know Bellarmine hath written a whole book, De verbo Dei non scripto,24 "of the Word of God not written," in [80] which he handles the controversy concerning traditions. And the cunning is, to make his weaker readers believe, that all that which he and his are pleased to call traditions, are by and by no less to be received and honoured than the unwritten word of God ought to be. Whereas, it is a thing of easy knowledge, that the "unwritten word of God," and "tradition," are not convertible terms, that is, are not all one. For there are many unwritten words of God, which were never delivered over to the Church, for aught appears: and there are many traditions, affirmed, at least, to be such by the Church of Rome, which were never warranted by any unwritten word of God.
IX.—First, That there are many unwritten words of God, which were never delivered over to the Church, is manifest. For when or where were the words which Christ spake to His apostles. during the " forty days" [Acts i. 3.] of His conversing with them after His resurrection, first delivered over to the Church? or what were the unwritten words He then spake? If neither He, nor His Apostles or Evangelists, have delivered them to the Church, the Church ought not to deliver them to her children. Or if she do tradere non traditum,25 "make a tradition of that which was not delivered to her," and by some of them, then she is unfaithful to God, and doth not servare depositum, "faithfully keep that which is committed to her trust." [1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 14.] And her sons, which come to know it, are not bound to obey her tradition against the word of their Father.26 For wheresoever Christ holds His peace, or that His words are not registered, I am of S. Augustine’s27 opinion, "No man [81] may dare without rashness say they were these, or these." So, there were many unwritten words of God, which were never delivered over to the Church; and therefore never made tradition. And there are many traditions, which cannot be said to be the unwritten word of God. For, I believe, a learned Romanist, that will weigh before he speaks, will not easily say, That to anoint or use spittle in baptism; or to use three dippings in the use of that sacrament; or divers other like traditions, had their rise from any word of God unwritten. Or if he be so hardy as to say so, it is gratis dictum, and he will have enough to do to prove it. So there may be an unwritten word of God, which is no tradition. And there are many traditions, which are no unwritten word of God. Therefore Tradition must be taken two ways:—either, as it is the Church’s act delivering, or the thing thereby delivered; and then it is human authority, or from it, and unable infallibly to warrant divine faith, or to be the object of it: or else as it is the unwritten word of God; and then wherever it can be made to appear so, it is of divine and infallible authority, no question. But then I would have A.C. consider where he is in this particular. He tells us, [A.C. p. 49. [ubi sup. p. 70.] We must know infallibly, that the books of Holy Scripture are divine, and that this must be done by unwritten tradition, but so, as that this tradition is the word of God unwritten. Now, let him but prove that this, or any tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon, is the word of God, though unwritten, and the business is ended. But A.C. must not think, [A.C. p. 50. [ubi sup. p. 70.] that because the tradition of the Church tells me these books are verbum Dei, "God’s word;" and that I do both honour and believe this tradition; that therefore this tradition itself is God’s word too, and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this belief in me. Therefore, for aught A.C. hath yet added, we must on with our inquiry after this great business, and most necessary truth.
[82]
X.—2. For the second way of proving that Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known, as by "divine" and "infallible" testimony, lumine proprio, by the independency of that light which it hath in itself only, and by the witness that it can so give to itself, I could never yet see cause to allow. For as there is no place in Scripture that tells us, Such books, containing such and such particulars, are the Canon, and infallible will and word of God:28 so if there were any such place, that were no sufficient proof. For a man may justly ask another book to bear witness of that; and again of that, another; and wherever it were written in Scripture, that must be a part of the whole: and no created thing can alone give witness to itself, and make it evident; nor one part testify for another, and satisfy where Reason will but offer to contest; except those principles only of natural knowledge, which appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding, without any discourse: and yet they also to the weaker sort require induction preceding. Now this inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture itself: and so the principles and the conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same, which cannot be. Besides, if this "inward light" were so clear, how could there have been any variety among the ancient believers touching the authority of S. James’ and S. Jude’s Epistles,29 and the Apocalypse,30 with other books which were not received for [83] divers years after the rest of the New Testament? For, certainly, the light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is. And how could the Gospel of S. Bartholomew, of S. Thomas, and other counterfeit pieces, obtain so much credit with some, as to be received into the Canon, if the evidence of this light were either universal or infallible, of, and by, itself? And this though I cannot approve, yet methinks you may, and upon probable grounds at least. For I hope no Romanist will deny,31 but that there is as much light in Scripture, to manifest and make ostension of itself to be infallibly the written word of God, as there is in any tradition of the Church, that it is divine, and infallibly the unwritten word of God. And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets, "Thus saith the Lord," [Isa. xliv. 2. et passim.] and from the mouths of the Apostles, that "the Holy Ghost spake by them," [Acts xxviii. 25.] are at least as able and as fit to bear witness to their own verity, as the Church is to bear witness to her own traditions, by bare saying they come from the Apostles. And yourselves would never go to the Scripture to prove that there are traditions, as you do,32 if you do not think the Scripture as easy to be discovered by "inbred light in itself," [2 Thess. ii. 15. Jude, ver. 3.] as traditions by their "light." And if this be so then it is as probable at the least (which some of ours affirm) "That Scripture may be known to be the word of God by the light and lustre which it hath in itself," as it is (which you affirm,) "That a tradition may be known to be such by the light which it hath in itself." which is an excellent proposition to make sport withal, were this an argument to be handled merrily.XI.—3. For the third opinion and way of proving, either some think that there is no sufficient warrant for this, unless they fetch it from the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and so [84] look in vain after special revelations, and make themselves, by this very conceit, obnoxious, and easy to be led by all the whisperings of a "seducing private spirit;" or else you would fain have them think so. For your side,33 both upon this and other occasions, do often challenge, "That we resolve all our faith into the dictates of a private Spirit;" from which we shall ever prove ourselves as free [as], if not freer than, you. To the question in hand then: Suppose it agreed upon that there must be a divine faith,34 cui subesse non potest falsum, "under which can rest no possible error," that the books of Scripture are the written word of God: if they which go to the testimony of the Holy Ghost for proof of this, do mean by faith, objectum fidei, "the object of faith" that is to be believed, then, no question, they are out of the ordinary way. For God never sent us by any word or warrant of His, to look for any such "special and private testimony" to prove which that book is, that we must believe. But if by faith they mean the habit, or act, of divine infused faith, by which virtue they do believe the credible object, and thing to be believed, then their speech is true, and confessed by all divines of all sorts. For faith is the "gift of God,"35 of God alone, and an "infused habit,"36 in respect [85] 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,37 so did He not leave the Church in general, nor the true members of it in particular, without grace to believe what Himself had revealed and made credible.38 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 induceeth to the faith; yet it ends in God, revealing within, and teaching within, that which the Church preached without."39 For till the Spirit of God move the heart of man, he cannot believe, be the object never so credible. The speech is true then, but quite out of the state of this question:40 which inquires only after a sufficient means [86] 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"41 be excepted, when a man lives in such a time and place as excludes him from all ordinary means; in which I dare not offer to shut up God from the souls of men, nor to tie Him to those ordinary ways and means to which yet in great wisdom and providence He had tied and bound all 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 revelation, is within, nor felt nor seen of any but him42 that hath it.43 So that hence can be drawn no proof to others. And miracles are not sufficient alone to prove it, unless both they, and the revelation too, agree with the rule of Scripture, [Gal. i. 8.] which is now an unalterable rule by man or angel. To all this A.C. [A.C. p. 52.] says nothing, save "that I seem not to admit of an infallible impulsion of a44 private Spirit, ex parte subjecti, without any infallible reason, [87] 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,45 may not justly be denied by any reasonable man. For though reason without grace cannot see the way to heaven, nor believe this book, in which God hath written the way; yet grace is never placed but in a reasonable creature, and proves by the very seat which it hath taken up, that the end it hath is to be spiritual eyewater, to make reason see what by "nature only it cannot,"46 but never to blemish reason in that which it can, "comprehend." Now the use of reason is very general; and man, do what he can, is still apt to search and seek for a reason why he will believe; though, after he once believes, his faith grows stronger than either his reason or his knowledge:47 [88] 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 infallible verity to the least point of them. Doth any man doubt this? The world cannot keep him from going to weigh it at the balance of reason, whether it be the word of God or not. To the same weights he brings the tradition of the Church, the inward motives in Scripture 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 containing it, refuse not to be weighed by reason.48 But the scale is not large enough to contain, nor the weights to measure out, the true virtue and full force of either. Reason, then, can give no supernatural ground into which a man may resolve his faith, That Scripture is the word of God infallibly: yet Reason can go so high, as it can prove that Christian religion, which rests upon the authority of this book, stands upon surer grounds of nature, reason, common equity, and justice, than any thing in the world which any infidel or mere naturalist hath done, doth or can adhere unto, against [89] 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 indifferency. 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.
Note: Initial number/letter, eg. 31g, indicates page number and letter of original footnote. Other endnotes have been gathered from marginal notes in LACT No. 11.
1 70/l [Et non est quidem durum,.quod unusquisque fidelium qui credit quidem, non tamen cum ratione, et cum judicio credit, ut ita sit constans in fide, ut etsi mille crimina objiciant contra evangelicam fidem] volentes destruere fidem nostram, [ut in nulla partecorum commoveatur sermonibus,] qui [fingentes se credere scripturis evangelicis,] per occasionem unius aut alterius quaestionis aut difficilis, aut forte et indissolubilis, [adversantes scripturis] festinat fidem [Christi et Evangeliorum ejus] tollere [de anima nostra.—Origen.Q. [i.e.Tractat.] xxxv. in Matth. [Erasmo interpret. tom. ii. 231. ed. Frobenii, Basil. 1545. et in Matth. Comment. Ser. 134. Op., tom. iii. p. 923. D. ed. Benedict.]
2 71m "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 prophetarum et apostolorum esse divinos, tamen non certo id credam, nisi prius credidero, Scripturam, quae hoc dicit, esse divinam.]—Bellarm. 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 certe ex Scripturis haberi non potest.—Ibid. col. 175. D.]
3 72n Esse aliquas veras traditiones demonstratur ex Scripturis.—Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 5. [in tit. Si Scriptura non continet omnia, et necessarium est verbum traditum, sequitur esse aliquod verbum traditum, alioqui Deus non bene providisset ecclesiae. Secundo probatur testimoniis Scripturarum. Primum est Johannis xvi. 12. Multa habeo, &c. Et Johan. xxi. 25. Sunt autem et alia multa, &c.—Op., tom. i. col. 177. D.] And A.C p. 50. [ubi sup. p. 70.] proves "tradition" out of 2 Thess. ii. [1 5.]
4 72o Aristot Post. [Analyt. lib.] i. cap.2. T. 16. per Pacium. Quocirca si dia ta prôta, propter prima scimus et credimus, illa quoque scimus et credimus, mallov, magis, quia per illa scimus et credimus etiam posteriora. [Anagkê, mê monon proginôskein ta prôta, ê panta ê enia, alla kai mallon aei gar, di’ ho huparchei hekaston, ekeino mallon huparchei; hoion, di’ ho philoumen, ekeino philon mallon. Hôst’, eiper ismen dia ta prôta kai pisteuomen, kakeina ismen te kai pisteuomen mallon, hoti di’ ekeina kai ta husteron—Op., tom. i. p. 185. ed. Bekker. Oxon. 1837.]
5 72p [Cui et tertium subjiciendum est, rationem formalem nostrae fidei non esse ecclesiae auctoritatem, hoc est, fidei ultimam resolutionem non fieri in ecclesiae testimonium, ipsae scholasticae res formas dicendi scholasticas rapiunt . . . Sed ad rem.] Eorum [hic] errorem dissimulare non possum, qui asserunt, fidem nostram eo, tanquam in ultimam credendi causam, reducendam esse, ut credamus ecclesiam esse veracem: [cui prius, inquiunt, assentimur per fidem acquisitam quam per infusam.]—Melch. Can[us,] de locis Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. [p. 54. ed. Lovan. 1569.]
6 73q Ecclesiae vox non est [ipsum] formale fidei objectum. [Probatur 1. quia absque ea fides haberi potest .... probatur 2. quia sola ejus vox et auctoritas ad veri nominis fidem non potest inducere.]—Stapleton. Relect. [Scholast. Princip. fid. doct.] Controv. iv. {Capit. de potest. Eccles. in se consid.] Quaest. iii. Art. 2. [Op., tom. i. p. 752.]—And, [(Arg. haeret. 5.) Si Deus per Ecclesiam revelans est ultima resolutio fidei, et consequenter infallibilis regula omnium credendorum ; profecto hoc ipsum non debet inter articulos fidei, qui sunt res regulatae poni. Ponitur autem. Ergo, &c. Patet minor, quia in Symbolo profitemur, Credo Ecclesiam Sanctam, &c. hoc est, Credo omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docet. Patet major, &c.... (Respons. ad arg. haeret. 5.) ... Dupliciter respondetur: Primum, non esse proprie distinctum articulum fidei, Quod Deus per Ecclesiam revelat, nec illud) in his verbis [contineri,l Credo Ecclesiam, etsi [enim] forte contineatur hoc totum, Credo ea, quae docet Ecclesia, tamen non intelligitur necessario quod Credo docenti Ecclesiae tanquam testi infallibili: [sunt enim haec distincta, ut notavit Waldensis, Doctrin. Fid. lib. ii. cap. 20.—Stapleton.] ibid. [pp. 754, 755.]—Ubi etiam [Stapleton] rejicit opinionem Durandi et Gabr. [Biel. sc. his verbis: (Arg. Scholast. 3.) Credo Deum esse trinum et unum, quia Scriptura sic dicit. Credo dicenti Scripturae, quia Dei verbum est. Credo esse Dei verbum, quia Ecelesia hoc testatur. Credo Ecclesiae sic attestanti, quia credo Ecclesiam regi infallibiliter a Spiritu S. Ergo a primo ad ultimum primum inter credibilia quod est ratio credendi alia, et ad quod fit ultima resolutio credibilium, est, Credere Ecclesiam regi & Spiritu S. Sunt argumenta Durandi in III. Sentent. Distinct. xxiv. Quaest. 1. et Gabrielis Biel. ibid. Distinct, xxiii. Quaest. 2. ... (Respons. ad arg. Scholast. 3.) ... Ultima resolutio credibilium non est, Credere Ecclesiam regi a Spiritu S., nam adhuc amplius quaeri potest, quare credimus Ecclesiam regi a Spiritu S. Cui necessario respondendum est, ideo nos hoc credere quia Deus nobis hoc complexum per Ecclesiam sive in Scripturis sive extra revelavit. Sic enim alia omnia fidei objecta credo. Ultima igitur resolutio credibilium quoad nos, et posita Dei ordinatione, et ordinarie loquendo, est Deus per ecclesiam revelans; sed absolute, et per se, ultima resolutio est Deus verax, seu Deus intus in cords revelans, juxta illud Joann. Baptist. Quem misit Deus, verba Dei loquitur, &c. Joann. iii. 34.—Stapleton. ibid. p. 754.}—Et [Stapleton. rejicit opinionem] Waldens. [ubi ait: Fides autem ut est Ecclesiae Catholicae in hoc accedit fidei Scripturarum: quod non licet de ipsa dubitare eo quod] testimonium ecclesiae Catholicae est objectum fidei Christianae, et legislatio Scripturae canonicae. Subjicitur tamen ipsi sicut testis judici, et testimonium veritati; [sicut praeconizatio definitioni et sicut praeco regi.—Thom. Waldens.] Doctrinalis Fidei, tom. i. lib. ii. art. ii. cap. 21. [fol. 103. col. 4. ed. Paris. 1532.]—[Et tamen Ecclesia proponens est causa, sine qua ego non admitterem illud Evangelium esse Matthaei. Spiritu itaque S. ecclesiam afflatam certe credo; non ut veritatem auctoritatemve libris canonicis tribuat, sed ut doceat illos, non alios, esse canonicos.] Nec si Ecclesia nobis aditum praebet ad hujusmodi sacros libros cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est; sed ultra oportet progredi, et solida Dei veritate niti. [Qua ex re intelligitur quid sibi voluerit Augustinus, (contra epist. Fundamenti,) cum ait, Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae moveret auctoritas.]—Melch. Canus, de loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. [p. 59. ed. Lovan. 1569.]
7 74r Omnia ergo ecclesiastica auctoritas, cum sit ad testificandum de Christo, et legibus Ejus, vilior est Christi legibus, et Scripturis sanctis necessario postponenda.—Thom. Wald. Doctrinalis Fidei, tom. i. lib. ii. art. ii. cap. 21. [fol. 103. col. 1. ubi sup.]
8 74s Totum majus est sua parte. Axioma [est item logicum in distributionis loco proprium,] nec ideo geometricum putandum est, quia geometres eo utatur. Utitur enim tota logica, [nec ideo logicam subjeceris geometriae.—Petr.] Rami, Schol[arum] Math[ematicarum, lib. vii. 9. p. 164. ed. Basil. 1569.]—And Aristotle vindicates such propositions, ta en tois mathêmasi kaloumena axiômata, from being usurped by particular sciences, hapasi gar uparchei, &c. Quia conveniunt omni enti et non alicui generi separatim.—Metaph[ysic. lib. iii. (al. iv.)] cap. 3. [in init. Lekteon de, poteron mias ê heteras epistêmês, peri te tôn en tois mathêmasi kaloumenôn axiômatôn, kai peri tês ousias. Phaneron dê, hoti mias te kai tês tou philosophou kai hê peri toutôn esti skepsis; hapasi gar huparchei tois ousin, all’ ou genei tini chôris idia tôn allôn. Kai chrôntai men pantes hoti tou ontos estin hê on, ekaston de to genos on.—Op., tom. viii. p. 62. ed. Bekker.]
9 75t Intelligentia [enim] dictorum ex causis est assumenda dicendi; quia non sermoni res, sed rei est sermo subjectus.—S. Hilar. lib. iv. chap. 14.] de Trinit. [Op., col. 835. F. ed. Benedict.] — [Sic etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse,] ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus.—Tertull. lib. de Resur. Carnis, cap. xxxvii. [p. 347. ed. Rigalt.]
10 75u [Et vide quoniam quaedam quidem similia habent, alia autem dissimilia: ut] videns differentias similium ad similia, [discas sensum Scripturae.]—Origen. Tract. xix. in S. Matth. [Op., Lat. per Erasm. tom. ii. p. 112. exethemên dê to apo tou Êsaiou asma, bouloumenos auto sunexetasai tê parabolê, ei kata tou autou keitai ho ampelôn sêmainomenon en hekatera tê graphê; kai hora tina men homoia echousin hai ektetheisai lexeis, tina de ouch homoia, hina blepôn tas diaphoras tôn homoiôn pros ta anomoia, houtôs epistês tô nô tês graphês.—Comment. in Matth. tom. xvii. cap. 7. Op., tom. iii. p. 775. D. ed. Benedict.]
11 75x [Sed] recolendum est unde venerit illa sententia, et quae illam superiora pepererint, quibusque connexa dependeat.—S. Aug. Ep. xxix. [lib. ii, ad Hieronym. seu Epist. clxvii. cap. 3. Op., tom. ii. par. 2. col. 595. G. ed. Benedict.]—Solet circumstantia Scripturae illuminare sententiam, [cum ea quae circa Scripta (sc. Scripturam) sunt, praesentem quaestionem contingentia, diligenti discussione tractantur.]—S. Augustin. lib. Octogintatritim Quaestionum, Quaest. 69. [cap. 2. Op., tom. vi. col. 56. C. ed. Benedict.]
12 75y Quae ambigue et obscure in nonnullis Scripturae Sacrae locis dicta videntur, per ea, quae alibi certa et indubitata habentur, declarantur.—S. Basil. in regulis contractis, Reg. 267. [Ta amphibola kai epikekalummenôs eirêsthai dokounta en tisi topois tou theopneustou graphês, hupo tôn en allois topois homologoumenôn saphênizetai.—S. Basil. Regul. brevius tractat. Interrog. cclxvii. Op., tom. ii. p. 506. E. ed. Benedict.]—[Et haec itaque dispectio tituli, et praeconii ipsius, fidem utique defendens vocabulorum, illuc proficere debebit, ut si quid pars diversa turbat obtentu figurarum et aenigmatum,] manifestiora quaeque praevaleant, et de incertis certiora praescribant.—Tertull. de Resurrectione [Christi], cap. xix. [Op., p. 336. C. ed. Rigalt.]—Et, [Et utique aequum sit, quod et supra demandavimus, incerta de certis et obscura de manifestis praejudicari; vel ne inter discordiam certorum et incertorum, manifestorum et obscurorum, fides dissipetur, veritas periclitetur, ipsa divinitas ut inconstans denotetur.—ibid.] cap. xxi. [p. 357. C.]—[Ubi autem apertius ponuntur, ibi discendum est quomodo in locis intelligantur obscuris. Neque enim melius potest intelligi quod dictum est Deo, Apprehende arma et scutum, et exurge in adjutorium mihi, quam ex illo loco ubi legitur, Domine, ut scuto bonae voluntatis Tuae coronasti nos.]—S. Aug. de doct. Christ. lib. iii. cap. 26. [Op., tom. iii. par. 1. col. 56. B.]—Moris est Scripturarum, obscuris manifesta subnectere, et quod prius sub aenigmatibus dixerint, aperta voce proferre.—S. Hieron in Esa. xix. [in] princip. [Op., tom. iii. col. 127. ed. Benedict.]—Vide [infra,] Sect. 26. §. iv.
13 76z [S. Augustine’s rules, according to the marginal synopsis in the Benedictine edition. are: Ante omnia considerandum genus locutionis.—Idem verbum non idem significat ubique.—Obscura ex locis apertioribus explicanda.—Eundem locum varie intelligi nihil prohibet.—Locus incertus tutius per alios Scripturae locos quam per rationem manifestatur.—Troporum cognitio necessaria, &c.]—S. Aug. de Doctr. Christ. lib. iii. [cap. 22-29. Op., tom. iii. par. 1. col. 55-57.]
14 76a And this is so necessary. that Bellarmine confesses, that if tradition, which he relies upon, be not Divine, he and his can have no faith: Non habemus fidem; fides enim verbo Dei nititur.—De verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 4. [Bellarmine’s words are: Itaque hoc dogma tam necessarium. quod scilicet aliqua est Scriptura Divina, non potest sufficienter haberi ex sola Scriptura. Proinde cum fides nitatur verbo Dei, nisi habeamus verbum Dei non scriptum, nulla nobis erit fides.—Op., tom. i. col. 175. B.]—And A.C. tells us, p. 47.. "To know that Scripture is 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." And he gives the same reason for it, p. 50. [ubi sup. p. 70.] which Bellarmine doth.
15 77b Spiritu [itaque Sancto] ecclesiam afflatam, certe credo; non ut veritatem auctoritatemve libris canonicis tribuat, sed ut doceat illos, non alios, esse canonicos. Nec si Ecclesia nobis aditum praebet ad hujusmodi sacros libros cognoscendos, protinus ibi acquiescendum est; sed ultra oportet progredi, et solida Dei veritate niti. Qua ex re intelligitur quid sibi voluerit Augustinus, cum ait, Evangelio non crederem, nisi [me Ecclesiae moveret auctoritas.]—M. Canus, de locis theolog. lib ii. cap. 8. fol. 34. B. [p. 59. ubi sup. p. 74. note q.]—Non [itaque] docet fundatam esse Evangelii fidem in Ecclesiae auctoritate, verum [simpliciter nullam esse certam viam qua sive infideles, seu in fide novitii, ad sacros libros ingrediantur, nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae, unum eundemque consensum.]—Ibid. [p. 60.]
16 77c Hooker. [Eccl. Polit.] Book iii. chap. ix. [sect. 2. Works, vol. i. p. 481. ed. Keble.—"The greatest among the school divines (sc. Thom. Aquin. Prim. Sec. Quaest. xci. Art. 3.) studying how to set down by exact definition the nature of an human law, (of which nature all the Church’s constitutions are,) found not which way better to do it than in these words: ‘Out of the precepts of the law of nature, as out of certain common and undemonstrable principles, man’s reason, &c.’"]
17 77d Stapl. Relect. Controv. iv. Q[uaest.] iii. Art. 1. 2. [ubi sup. p. 73. note q]
18 78e [Et similiter Apostolicae traditiones non scriptae eandem vim habent, quam Apostolicae traditiones scriptae, ut in Concil. Trident. Sess. iv. asseritur, et ratio est manifesta: nam] verbum Dei non est tale, nec habet ullam auctoritatem, quia scriptum est in membranis, sed quia a Deo profectum est, [vel immediate, ut sunt sermones Domini, vel mediantibus Apostolis, ut est decretum Apostolorum, Act. xv.]—Bellarmin. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 2. [Op., tom. i. col. 167. B.]
19 Gall. iii. [19.] Luke i. 30.
20 78f Lex ordinata per angelos in manu Mediatoris.—Gal. iii. 19.
21 79g "The Holy Ghost, &c. which spake by the prophets,"—in Symb. Nicen.
22 79h Nam pseudoprophetae etiam viventibus adhuc Apostolis, multas fingebant corruptelas, sub hoc praetextu et titulo, quasi ab Apostolis viva voce essent traditae, [sicut supra ostendimus:] et propter hanc ipsam causam Apostoli doctrinam suam coeperunt literis comprehendere, et Ecclesiis commendare.—Chem[nitii,] Exam. Concil. Trid. de Traditionibus, sub octavo genere Tradit. [par. 1. p. 76. col. 2. ed. Genev. 1614.]—And so also [Corn.] Jansen. in S. Johan. v. 47. [Com. in Concord. Evang. cap. xxxvi. in fin. p. 249. ed. Lovan. 1571.] Sicut enim firmius est quod mandatur literis, ita est culpabilius et majus non credere scriptis, quam non credere verbis.
23 79i [Ad primum in oppositum quod] labilis est memoria, et ideo indigemus Scriptura: Dicendum quod verum est, sed hoc non habet, nisi ex inundantia peccatorum.—Henr. a Gand. Summ. part. i. Art. viii. Q[uaest.] 4. [§ 10. tom. i. p. 166. ed. Ferrariae, 1646.—Henricus, cognomine Goethals .... gente Flander, Gandavensis a patria dictus, Mudam, prope Gandavum vicum natalem nactus .... claruit anno 1280, diu in collegio Sorbonico philosophiam et theologiam docuit tanta cum laude ut …. Doctor Solennis appellari meruit ....—Cave, Historia literaria, (Saeculum Scholast.) tom. ii. p. 326. Cf. Fr. Huet, Recherches, &c. sur Henri de Gand: Gand, 1838.]—[Sed ut quid pulsamus ad coelum, cum habeamus hic in Evangelio testamentum? Quia hoc loco recte possunt terrena coelestibus comparari: tale est quod quivis hominus habens numerosos filios, quamdiu pater praesens est, ipse imperat singulis; non est adhuc necessarium testamentum: sic et] Christus, [quamdiu praesens in. terris fuit, quamvis nec modo desit, pro tempore quicquid necessarium erat Apostolis imperavit. Sed quomodo terrenus pater, dum se in confinio senserit mortis, timens ne post mortem suam, rupta pace, litigent fratres, adhibitis teatibus,] voluntatem suam de peccatore morituro transfert in tabulas diu duraturas: [et si fuerit inter fratres nata contentio, non itur ad tumulum, sed quaeritur testamentum: et qui in tumulo quiescit, tacitus de tabulis loquitur. Vivus, cujus est testamentum, in coelo est: ergo voluntas ejus, velut in testamentum, sic in Evangelio requiratur.]—Optat. [Milevit. de Schism. Donatist.] lib. v. [cap. 3. Op., p. 81. ed. Dupin.—i.e.] Christus Ipse non transtulit, sed ex Optati sententia, Ejus inspiratione, si non jussu, Apostoli transtulerunt.
24 79k Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv.
25 80/l Annunciare [ergo] aliquid Christianis Catholicis, praetor id quod acceperunt, nunquam licuit, nusquam licet, nunquam licebit.—Vincen. Lirin. cap. xiv. [p. 25.]—Et praecepit nihil aliud innovari, nisi quod traditum est.—S. Cyprian. ad Pompeium cont. Epist. Stephan. [in] princip. [Epist. lxxiv. p. 138. ed. Benedict.]
26 80m [Sic certe fidelis Sacra Scriptura cognita, et in ipsa Christo invento, plus verbis Christi in ea credit, quam cuicunque praedicatori, quam etiam Ecclesiae testificanti, quia propter illam jam credit Ecelesiae, et] si ipsa [quidem] contraria Scriptura diceret, ipsi non crederet.—Henr. a Gand. Summ. part. i. Art. x. Q[uaest.] 1. [§ 10. tom. i. p. 183.]—And Bellarmine himself, that he might the more safely defend himself in the cause of traditions, says, (but how truly let other men judge:) Deinde commune est [iisdem sic agere, quasi ipsi Scripturas tantum, nos traditiones tantum defendamus, neque curemus, an traditiones sint secundum Scripturam, an contra Scripturam: at non ita est; nam Scripturam nos pluris facimus quam illi,] nec ullam traditionem admittimus contra Scripturam.—Lib. iv. de verbo Dei [non scripto,] cap. 3. § 7. [Op., tom. i. col. 169. B.]
27 80n S. Augustin. in S. Johan. Evang. [cap. xvi. 12.] Tractat. xcvi. in illa verba, Multa habeo [vobis] dicere, sed non potestis portare modo. [Op., tom. iii. par. ii. col. 733. C. Nunc ergo quae ista sint, quae Apostoli tunc portare non poterant, vultis forsitan scire. Sed quis nostrûm audeat eorum se dicere jam capacem, quae illi capere non valebant? .... Sed quaenam sint ista quae Ipse non dixit, temerarium est velle praesumere ac dicere .... Quae cum Ipse tacuerit, quis noatrûm dicat, Ista vel illa sunt?]
28 82o Hooker,[Eccl. Polit.] book ii. ch. iv. [sect. 2. Works, vol. i. pp. 370, 371. ed. Keble. "Finally, we all believe that the Scriptures of God are sacred, and that they have proceeded from God; ourselves we assure that we do right well in so believing. We have for this point a demonstration sound and infallible. But it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it His word. For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony to all, yet still that Scripture which giveth credit to the rest, would require another Scripture to give credit unto it; neither could we ever come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way: so that unless beside Scripture there were something which might assure us that we do well, we could not think we do well, no, not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of well-doing."]
29 82p [Toiauta kai ta kata ton Iakôbon, ou hê prôtê tôn onomazomenôn katholikôn epistolôn einai legetai; isteon de hôs notheuetai men; ou polloi goun tôn palaiôn autês emnêmoneusan, hôs oude tês legoumenês Ioda, mias kai autês ousês tôn hepta legomenôn katholikôn.]—Euseb. [Hist. Eccles.] lib. ii. cap. 27. [in] fin. ed. Basil. 1549. [cap. 23. tom. i. p. 82. apud Hist. Eccl. Script. ed. Reading.]
30 82q [en tois nothois katatetachôn kai tou Paulou praxeôn hê graphê … eti te, hôs ephên, hê Iôannou apokalupsis ei phaneiê, hên tines, hôs ephên, athetousin, heteroi de egkrinousi tois homologoumenois]—Euseb. [Hist. Eccles.] lib. iii. cap. 25. [tom. i. p. 119. apud Hist. Eccl. Script. ed. Reading.]
31 83r Except A.C., whose boldness herein I cannot but pity. For he denies this "light" to the Scripture, and gives it to Tradition. His words are (p. 52): "Tradition of the Church is of a company, which by its own light shows [showeth—A.C.] itself to be infallibly [infallibly—caret A.C.] assisted [by Christ and His Holy Spirit], &c."
32 83s In your Articles delivered to Dr. W[hite,] to be answered. ["D.White excepted against that part of the paper, wherein was said, That the word of God was partly written, partly unwritten, and would have nothing to be the word of God, but what is written in Scripture. M. Fisher, to justify that part of the paper, first alleged that text of S. Paul, Hold the traditions, &c."—The Relation of the Conference, &c. p. 15.] And A.C. p. 52. [seu potius, p. 50. ubi sup. p. 70.]
33 84t A Jesuit, under the name of T.S. [J.S.] set out a book, anno 1630, which he called, "The Triall of the Protestant private Spirit." [The full title of this book is: "The triall of the Protestant Private Spirit: wherein their doctrine making the sayd Spirit the sole grounde and meanes of their beliefs is confuted ... The Second Part which is doctrinall. Written by J.S. of the Society of Jesus. Permissu superiorum. MDCXXX." Its author was J. Sergeant: and in a Preface he explains how "this Second Part gets birth and breath, and comes to light before the first."]
34 84u Ut testimonia Scripturae certam et indubitatam fidem praestent, necessarium videtur ostendere, quod ipsae Divinae Scripturae sint Dei Spiritu inspiratae.—Origen. peri archôn, lib. iv. [cap. 1. Rufin. interpret. Op., tom. i. p. 156. ed. Benedict. marturia ta ek tôn pepisteumenôn hêmin einai theiôn graphôn, tês te legoumenês palaias diathêkês, kai tês te kaloumenês kainês, logô te peirômetha kratunein hêmôn tên pistin.]
35 84x 1 Cor. xii. 3, 4.—[Supra dixerat, Sed sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt; et tanquam hujus rei causam exponens, Propterea dixi, inquit, vobis, quia nemo potest venire ad Me, nisi fuerit ei datum a Patre: ut ostenderet etiam ipsam fidem qua credit, et ex morte sui cordis anima reviviscit,] dari nobis a Deo, &c.—S. Augustin. [Enarr.] in Psalm. lxxxvii. Op., tom. iv. col. 932. F. ed. Benedict.]
36 84y [Hanc autem causam Pelagiani ponebant solum liberum arbitrium hominis; et propter hoc dicebant quod initium fidei est ex nobis: in quantum sc. ex nobis est, quod parati sumus ad assentiendum his, quae sunt fidei: sed consummatio fidei est a Deo, per quam nobis proponuntur ea quae credere debemus. Sed hoc est falsum], quia [cum] homo, assentiendo his quae sunt fidei, elevetur supra naturam suam, oportet quod hoc insit ei ex supernaturali principio interius movente, quod est Deus: [et ideo fides quantum ad assentiendum, quod est principalis actus fidei, est a Deo interius movente per gratiam.]—Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Qluaest.] vi. A[rt.] 1. [in respons.]—And your own divines agree in this, that fides acquisita is not sufficient for any article, but there must be fides infusa, before there can be divine certainty. [Nec verus catholicus, quod nonnulli fingunt, assentitur huic, Ecclesia est verax, solum per] conjecturas humanas, quibus acquisita fides innititur. Ad quem modum et Saraceni suis praeceptoribus. et Judaei suis rabbinis, et Gentes suis philosophis, et omnes [denique] suis majoribus inhaerent. Non sic [in quam,] Christiani; sed per interius lumen infusum a Spirito Sancto, quo firmissime et certissime moventur ad credendum, [ecclesiam Christianam errare non posse.—Melchior] Canus, de loc Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. § Jam si haec, [p. 59.]
37 85z Symbol. Nicen. "The Holy Ghost, [Who] spake by the prophets," &c.—Et 1 Pet. ii. 21.—[Tu itaque, regnator creaturae tuae,] quis est modus, quo doces animas ea quae futura sunt? Docuisti enim prophetas Tuos.—S. Augustin. Confess. lib. xi. cap. 19. [Op., tom. i. col. 203. D.]
38 85a [Calvini certo arguments respondens dixi:] Nec cum ecclesiae testimonium aut judicium praedicamus, Dei Spiritum, vel ab ecclesia docente, vel a nobis audientibus, excludimus, [ut vel stultissime de nobis imaginantur, vel vafre et scelerate cogitare se fingunt Protestantes,] sed utrobique diserte includimus, &c.—Stapleton. Triplicatio adversus Whitakerum, [pro ecclesiae auctoritate,] cap. iii. [Op., tom. i. p. 1142. C.]
39 85b [Etsi pars objecti formalis sit vox ecclesiae’ non tamen in fidem acquisitam resolvitur fides infusa, sed plane contra fides acquisita resolvitur in infusam: id est,] fides quae coepit ab ecclesiae testimonio, quatenus proponit et inducit ad fidesm, desinit in Deo intus revelante et intus docente quod foris ecclesia praedicavit.—Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [ Controv.] iv. [de potestat. Eccl. in se, Q[uaest.] iii. A[rt.] 2. [respons. ad argum. haeret. Op., tom. i. p. 755. A.]—["Neither can I think that] when grave and learned men do sometime hold, that of this principle there is no proof but by the testimony of the Spirit, [which assureth our hearts therein,] it is their meaning to exclude [utterly] all force [which any kind] of reason may have in that behalf; but [I] rather [incline to interpret such their speeches as if they had more expressly set down,] that other motives and inducements, [be they never so strong and consonant with reason,] are, [notwithstandindg] uneffectual of themselves to work faith [concerning this principle], if the special grace of the Holy Spirit concur not [to the enlightening of our minds.]—Hooker, [Eccl. Polit.] book iii. ch. viii. [sect. 15. Works, vol. i. p. 476. ed. Keble.]
40 85c De habitu fidei quoad fieri ejus et generationem, quum a Deo immediate solo dono gratuito infusus est, nihil ad quaestionem, nisi quoad hoe quod per Scripturae inspectionem, &c. —Henr. a Gand. Summ. [part. i.] A[rt.] x. Q[uaest.] 1. D. [§ 7. Tom. i. p. 182. His words are: De habitu fidei ... nisi quo ad hoc, quod per Scripturae inspectionem, vel ecclesiae statum, et conversationem homini aliquo modo possit rationabiliter persuaderi, ut ei videatur assentiendum eis quae Scriptura dictat aut ecclesia praedicat: et sic aliquo modo disponitur de congruo ad susceptionem habitus fidei munere divino.]
41 86d Stapleton. Relect. Controv. iv. Quaest. iii. Art. 2. [Op., tom. i. p. 755. A, B. ubi sup note b.] doth not only affirm it, but proves it too, a paritate rationis, in case of necessity, where there is no contempt of the external means. [His words are: Rursum, sicut sanctificatio impletur aliquando invisibiliter, cum mysterium baptismi non contemptus religionis, sed articulus necessitatis, excludit, (ut scribit idem Augustinus de baptism. contra Donatist. lib. iv. cap. 22.] sic interna sola revelatio ad fidem aliquando efficaciter inducit, cum externa illa media non contemptus docentis ecclesiae, sed articulus aliquis necessitatis excludit: ut, videlicit, quia vel in cremo, vel inter paganos, &c.]
[but of him ... Edit. 1686.]43 86e [Quoniam igitur divina providentia, non solum singulis hominibus quasi privatim, sed universo generi humano tanquam publice, consulit,] quid cum singulis agatur, Deus scit qui agit, atque ipsi, eum quibus agitur, sciunt. Quid autem agatur eum genere humano, per historiam commondari voluit, et per prophetiam.—S. Augustin. de vera Relig cap. xxv. [Op., tom. i. col. 763. D.]
[the…. A.C.]45 87f Utitur tamen sacra doctrina [etiam] ratione humana, non quidem ad probandum fidem ipsam, [quia per hoc tolleretur meritum fidei,] sed ad manifestandum aliqua alia, quaetraduntur in hac doctrina.—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. Q[uaest.] i. A[rt.] 8. ad Secundum.—Passibus rationis novus homo tendit in Deum: [inquit] S. Augustin. de vera relig. cap. xxvi. [Op., tom. i. col. 764. F.] passibus, verum est, sed nec aequis, nec selis. [S. Augustine’s words are: Iste dicitur novus homo et interior et coelestis, habens ex ipsa proportione, non annis, sed provectibus, distinctas quasdam spiritales aetates suas.]—[AD TERTIUM dicendum, quod] invisibilis Dei altiori modo, quantum ad plura, percipit fides quam ratio naturalis ex creaturis in Deum procedens.—Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] ii. A[rt. 3. respons.] ad Tertium.
46 87g Animalis home non percipit.—1 Cor. ii. 14.
47 87h Quia [aliae] scientiae certitudinem habent ex naturali lumine rationis humanae, quae potest errare: [haec autem, sc.] Theologia, [quae docet et objectum et notitiam fidei, sicut et fidem ipsam], certitudinem habet ex lumine divinae scientiae, quae decipi non potest.—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. Q[uaest. 1. A[rt.] 5. [in respons.]—[Cum igitur etiam ego vicissim laudavero quod credo, et quod credis irrisero, quid putas nobis esse judicandum, quidve faciendum, nisi ut eos relinquamus, qui nos invitant certa cognoscere, et postea imperant ut incerta credamus; et eos sequamur, qui nos invitant prius credere, quod nondum valemus intueri,] ut, ipsa fide valentiores facti, quod credimus intelligere mereamur, [non jam hominibus, sed ipso Deo intrisecus mentem nostram illuminante atque firmante?]—S. Augustin. contra Epistolam Manichaei, quam vocant Fundamenti, cap. xiv. [Op., tom. viii. col. 160. D.]—Hoc autem ita intelligendum est, ut scientia certior sit certitudine evidentiae; 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 intellectus vero assentientis productus [procedens] ex voluntatis imperio.—[Gabr.] Biel. in III. Sentent. Distinct. xxiii. Qu[aest. ii. Art. 1 [These are not, except in portions, the exact words of Gabriel Biel, but rather an account of his whole argument. Part of the quotation is to be found in Nic. de Lyra, apud Bibl. Sacr. cum Gloss. ordinar, &c. in Johan. iv. 42. sc. Firmiter credere, quia in fide major est certitudo adhaerentiae, quam in scientia, quamvis non sit tanta certitudo evidentiae. And part occurs in Thom. Aquin. Secund. Secund. Quaest. iv. Art. 1. vide infra, p. 119. note h.]—Unde Thom. [Aquin. inquit, [AD TERTIUM dicendum quod] Intellectus credentis; determinatur ad unum, non per rationem, sed per voluntatem; et ideo assensus hic accipitur pro actu intellectus, secundum quod a voluntate determinatur ad unum.—Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] ii. A[rt.] 1.
48 88i Si vobis, rationi et veritati consentanea videntur, in pretio habete, &c. de mysteriis religionis.—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 argument of the exordium of his first Apology.]—Igitur, si fuit dispositio rationis [super filium Dei ex virgine proferendum, cur non ex virgine acceperit corpus, quod de virgine protulit?]—Tertull. lib. de Carne Christi, cap. xvii. O. [Op., p. 321. ed. Rigalt.]—Rationabile est credere Deum esse autorem Scripturae.—Henr. a Gand. Summ. tom. 1. Art. ix. Q[uaest.] 3. [The statements in the Quaestio referred to, upon which the conclusion referred to by Laud depends, seem these:— Quare cum sacra Scriptura directa dit humano generi a Deo per medios prophetas et apostolos et eorum successores: certitudo notitiae veritatis hujus scientiae non potest attribui alicui mediorum, nisi quia in ipso cognoscitur primum dirigens scilicet virtus divina refulgens in miraculis circa medios ad nos scientiam istam deferentes.—Art. ix. Quaest. 3. § 13. p. 180. Non est igitur incerta Dei auctoritas circa hanc Scripturam, nec levitatis est ei credere.—Ibid. § 14. p. 181. Conclusio 2. of this Quaestio is: "Rationale est credere auctorem hujus scientiae fuisse Deum." —p. 181.]