Project Canterbury
The Collected Works of the Most Reverend Father in God,
William Laud, D.D. Now First Collected.
Volume the Second: Conference with Fisher
Oxford: John Henry Parker.
MDCCCXLIX
Transcribed by John D Lewis
Murdoch University, Western Australia
May 2001
Section: | XVII | XVIII para i. ii. iii. iv. v. | XIX para i. ii. | XX para i. ii. iii. iv. v. | Notes |
[131] cont’d.
[SECTION XVII.]
F. The B. said, That the books of Scripture are principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved. [A.C. p.49.]
§ 17. B. Why, but did I say that this principle,—the books of Scripture are the word of God,—is to be supposed as needing no proof at all to a natural man? or to a man newly 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 farther way about to this principle; the other in their very Christian education suck it in, and are taught so soon as they are apt to learn it, that the books, commonly called the Bible or Scripture, are the word of God. And I dealt with you as with a Christian,1 though in error, while you call Catholic. The words before spoken by me were, "That the Scripture only, not any unwritten tradition, was the foundation of faith." The question between us and you is, "Whether the Scripture do contain all necessary things of faith?" Now in this question, as in all nature and art, the subject, the Scripture, is and must be supposed:2 the query between the Roman Catholics and the Church of England being only of the 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,3 I think I gave a satisfying [132] 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 dispute by itself. Yet here not you only, but Bellarmine4 and others, run quite out of the way to snatch at advantage.
[SECTION XVIII.]
F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my reply against5 M. 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. [A.C. p 50.]
*[The Chaplain saith, That somebody told him, "that the B. untied the knot:" But why doth not the Chaplain tell how he did untie the knot? It seemeth the knot was not so well untied, when the Jesuit had a reply so ready, as is insinuated, by his only going again and reading in the book which he had so rudely written. Although a praecognium in faith need not be so clearly known as a praecognitum in science, yet there must be this proportion, that as primum praecognitum, the first thing foreknown in a science, must be primo cognitum, first known, and must not need another thing pertaining to that science to be prius cognitum, known before it; so if in faith the Scriptures be the first and only foundation, and consequently the first thing known, primum praecognitum, it must be in faith primo cognitum, first known, and must not need any other thing pertaining to faith to be prius cognitum, known before it. And so Church-tradition, which is one thing pertaining to faith, could not, as the Chaplain saith it is, and as indeed it is, be known first, and be an introduction to the knowledge of Scripture. Moreover, like as sciences which suppose a principle proved in a higher science, cannot have certainty of that principle, but either by having seen that principle evidently proved by other principles borrowed of that higher science, or by giving credit to some that have seen, or have by succession received it from others that have seen it evidently so proved: so faith cannot have certainty of her first principles, but either by seeing proof from the knowledge of the Blessed, which ordinarily no man now seeth, or by giving credit immediately to some who have seen, as to Christ Who clearly saw, or to the Apostles to whom clear revelation,—I say, clear in attestante,—was made, or by giving credit to others who by succession have had it from the first seers. In which last case, the certainty of these principles can be no greater than is the authority of that succession. If it be merely human and fallible, the science and faith is human and fallible. Neither can any science or faith be divine and infallible, unless the authority of that succession be at least in some sort divine and infallible.
The Chaplain therefore, who, as it seemeth, will not admit Church-tradition to be in any sort divine and infallible, while it doth introduce the belief of Scriptures to be divine books, cannot sufficiently defend the faith introduced of that point to be infallible, unless he admit an infallible impulsion of the private spirit ex parte subjecti, without any infallible sufficiently applied reason ex parte subjecti, which he seemeth not, nor hath reason, to do: for this were [133] to open the gap to enthusiasms of all upstart Anabaptists, and would take away due proportion of object and subject, and the sweet order of things which Divine Providence hath appointed. It may be that if he would but consider the tradition of the Church, not only as of a company of fallible men, in which sort the authority of it is but human and fallible, but also as it is the tradition of a company which, by its own light, sheweth itself to be assisted by Christ and His Holy Spirit, far more clearly than Scripture, by its own light, doth shew itself to be the infallible Word of God; he would find no difficulty in that respect to account the authority of Church-tradition to be infallible, and consequently not only able to be an introduction, but also an infallible motive reason, or at least condition ex parte objecti, to make both itself, and the books of Scripture appear infallibly, though obscurely, to our soul, disposed and illuminated by God’s Spirit, to have in them divine and infallible authority, and to be worthy of divine and infallible credit, sufficient to breed in us divine and infallible faith.
Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the tradition of the present Church these two ways, as well as the present Scripture printed and approved by men of this age. For if the Scriptures, printed and approved by men of this age, must be considered not only as printed and approved by men, in regard the credit given to them thus considered can be no more than human, but also as printed, and, by authority of men assisted by God’s Spirit, approved to be true copies of that which was first written by the Holy Ghost’s penmen, before we can give infallible credit unto them, I see no reason why the like twofold consideration of the tradition of the present Church may not be admitted; especially when as the promise of Christ and His Holy Spirit’s continual presence and assistance (Luke x. 16; Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; John xiv. 16,) was made no less, but rather more, expressly to the Apostles and their successors, the lawfully-sent pastors and doctors of the Church in all ages, in their teaching by word of mouth, than in writing, or reading, or printing, or approving copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles.
Perhaps the Chaplain will ask me, how I know that any Church, or company of men of this age, or any age since the Apostles, have the promise of Christ and His Holy Spirit’s assistance? I answer that I know it both by tradition and Scripture, considered in the twofold manner aforesaid, both which, without any vicious circle, mutually confirm the authority of each other, as a king’s ambassador’s word of mouth, and his king’s letter, bear mutual witness of each other. And I do not want other both outward and inward arguments, or motives of credibility, which are sufficient not only to confirm the faith of believers, but also to persuade well-disposed infidels, that both the one and the other were sent from God: and that one is the infallible Word of God, speaking in and by His legates, the lawfully-sent preachers of the Church; the other, the infallible Word of God, speaking in and by His letters, the holy Scriptures, which He hath appointed His said legates to deliver and expound unto us, and which among other things do warrant that we may hear and give credit to these legates of Christ, as to Christ the King Himself.—A.C. marg. note to p. 50.]
§ 18. B. 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 that against this you read what you had formerly written. Well, whatever you read there, certain it is you do a great deal of wrong to M. Hooker6 and myself, that, because we call it a supposed or presumed principle among Christians, you should fall by and by into such a metaphysical discourse7 to prove, that [134] that which is a praecognitum,8 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, especially 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 sunshine, then, indeed, we settle for our direction, but not upon the first opening 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 in9 a prime: nor how it may in divinity, where prae- as well as post-cognita, things fore-, as well as after,-known, are matters, and under the manner of faith, and not of science strictly: nor whether a praecognitum, a presupposed principle in faith, which rests upon divine authority, must needs have as much and equal light to natural reason, as prime principles have in nature, while they rest upon reason: nor whether it may justly be denied to have sufficient light because not equal. Your own school grants, "That in us, which are the subjects both of faith and knowledge, and in regard of the evidence given in unto us, there is less light, less evidence in the principles of faith, than in the principles of knowledge, upon which there can be no doubt."10 But I think the school will never grant [135] that the principles of faith, even this in question, have not ancient evidence. And you ought not to do, as you did, without any distinction, or any limitation, deny a praecognitum, or prime principle in the faith, because it answers not in all things to the prime principles in science, in their light and evidence;—a thing in 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 praecognitum in science, yet there must be this proportion between them, that, whether it be in science or in faith, the praecognitum, or thing supposed as known, must be prius cognitum, first known, and not need another thing pertaining to that faith or knowledge to be known before it. But the Scripture, saith he, needs tradition to go before it, and introduce the knowledge of it. Therefore the Scripture is not to be supposed as a praecognitum, and a thing fore-known." Truly I am sorry to see in a man very learned such wilful mistakes. For A. C. cannot but perceive, by that which I have clearly laid down before,11 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 coqnitae, 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."12 Before which question it must [136] necessarily be supposed and granted on both sides, that the Scriptures are the word of God. For if they be not, it is instantly out of all question, 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 farther. For I would fain make it appear as plainly as in such a difficulty it can be made, what wrong he doth truth and himself in this case. And it is the common fault of them all. For when the Protestants answer to this argument—which, as I have showed, can properly have no place in the question between us about tradition—they13 which grant this as a praecognitum, a thing foreknown—as also I do—were neither ignorant nor forgetful that things presupposed, as already known, in a science, are of two sorts: for either they are plain and fully manifest in their own light; or they are proved and granted already, some former knowledge having made them evident. This principle then—the Scriptures are the oracles of God—we cannot say is clear, and fully manifest to all men simply, and in self-light, for the reasons before given. Yet we say, after tradition hath been our introduction, the soul that hath but ordinary grace added to reason, may discern light sufficient to resolve our faith that the sun is there. This principle, then, being not absolutely and simply evident in 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 blessed in [137] heaven."14 In this superior science this principle—the Scriptures are the oracles of God—is more than evident in full light. This superior science delivered this principle in full revealed light to the Prophets and Apostles: this infallible light of this principle made their authority derivatively divine:15 by the same divine authority they wrote, and delivered the Scripture to the Church: therefore from them immediately the Church received the Scripture, and that uncorrupt, though not in the same clearness of light which they had. And yet, since no sufficient reason hath [been], or can be, [138] given, that in any substantial thing it hath been corrupted,16 it remains firm at this day, and that proved in the most supreme science; and therefore now to be supposed, at least by all Christians, that the Scripture is the word of God. So my answer is good, even in strictness, that this principle is to be supposed in this dispute.
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 Prophets, and ours was delivered by the Apostles, which were Prophets too. The Jews did believe their Scripture by a Divine authority; for so the Jews argue themselves: "We know that God spake with Moses." [John ix. 29.] And that, therefore, they could no more err in following Moses, than they could in following God Himself.17 And our Saviour seems to infer as much, where He expostulates with the Jews thus: "If you believe not Moses his writings, how should you believe Me?" [John v. 47.] Now how did the Jews know that God spake to Moses? How? why, apparently the same way that is before set down. First, By tradition. So S. Chrysostom: "We know why: By whose witness do you know? By the testimony of our ancestors."18 But he speaks not of their immediate ancestors, but their prime, which were Prophets, and whose testimony was divine; into which, namely their writings, the Jews did resolve their faith. And even that Scripture of the Old Testament was a " light," and a " shining light" [2 Pet. i. 19.] too; and, therefore, could not but be sufficient when tradition had gone before. And yet, though the Jews entered this way to their belief of the Scripture, they do not say, "Audivimus, We have heard that God spake to Moses," but, "We know it."19 [139] So they resolved their faith higher, and into a more inward principle, than an ear to their immediate ancestors and their tradition. And I would willingly learn of you, if you can show it me, wherever any one Jew, disputing with another about their Law, did put the other to prove that the Old Testament was the word of God. But they still supposed it. And when others put them to their proof, this way they went. And yet you say:
[SECTION XIX.]
F. That no other answer could be made, but by admitting some word of God unwritten, to assure us of this point.
B. I.—I think I have showed that my answer is good, and that no other answer need be made. If there were need, I make no question but another answer might be made to assure us of this point, though we did not admit of any word of God unwritten. I say, to assure us; and you express no more. If you had said, "to assure us by Divine faith," your argument had been the stronger. But if you speak of assurance only in the general, I must then tell you—and it is the great advantage which the Church of Christ hath against infidels—a man may be assured, nay infallibly 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 Church story assure me the other, that Christ and His Apostles delivered this body of Scripture as the oracles of God? For Jews, enemies to Christ, they bear witness to the Old Testament; and Christians, through almost all nations, give in evidence to both Old and New.20 And no Pagan, or other [140] enemies of Christianity, can give such a worthy and consenting testimony for any authority upon which they rely, or almost for any principle which they have, as the Scripture hath gained to itself. And as is the testimony, which it receives, above all "writings of all nations,"21 so here is assurance in a great measure, without any divine authority, in a word written or unwritten. A great assurance, and it is infallible too; only then we must distinguish infallibility. For, first, a thing may be presented as an infallible object of belief, when it is true and remains so: for truth, 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 divine faith, cui subesse non potest falsum, "into which no falsehood can come," but by a divine testimony.22 This testimony is absolute in Scripture itself, delivered by the Apostles for the word of God, and so sealed to our souls by the operation of the Holy Ghost. That which makes way for this, as an introduction and outward motive23 is the tradition of the present Church; but that neither simply divine, nor sufficient alone into which we may resolve our faith, but only as is before24 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 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:"25 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,26 enough and more than enough: which yourselves have not done, do not. And for begetting and settling a belief of this principle, we go the same way with you, and a better besides. The same way with you; because we allow the tradition of the present Church to be the first inducing motive to embrace this principle: only we cannot go so far in this way as you, to make the present tradition always an infallible word of God unwritten; for this is to go so far in, till you be out of the way. For tradition is but a lane in the Church: it hath an end, not only to receive us in, but another after, to let us out into more open and richer ground. And we go a better way than you; because after we are moved, and prepared, and induced by tradition, we resolve our faith into that written word, and God delivering it: in which we find materially, though not in terms, the very tradition that led us thither. And so we are sure by divine authority that we are in the way, because at the end we find the way proved. And do what can be done, you can never settle the faith of man about this great principle, till you rise to greater assurance than the present Church alone can give. [142] And therefore once again to that known place of S. Augustine.27 The words of the Father are, Nisi commoveret, "unless the authority of the Church moved me;" but not alone, but with other motives: else it were not commovere, "to move together." And the other motives are resolvers, though this be leader. Now, since we go the same way with you, so far as you go right; and a better way than you, where you go wrong; we need not admit any other word of God than we do. And this ought to remain as a presupposed principle among all Christians, and not so much as come into this question, about the sufficiency of Scripture, between you and us. But you say that
[SECTION XX.]
F. From this the Lady called * us, and desiring to hear, whether the B. would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church, the B. granted that it was. [A.C. p. 53.]
* [The Chaplain saith: "As it is true that this question was asked, so it is false, that it was asked in this form, or so answered." I answer that the Jesuit doth not say that the Lady asked this question in this, or any other precise, form of words, but only saith she was desirous to hear whether the B. would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church: which to have been her desire the Jesuit is sure, as having particularly spoken with her before, and wished her to insist upon this point.
Secondly, he is sure, that she did not propound the question in that precise form, insinuated by the Chaplain, viz. Whether the Roman be a true Church; as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing the B. say that the Roman Church is a true Church, and the Greek Church another, and the Protestant another. This, I say, could not be her question, for that she was persuaded that all these were not right and true, and that there was but one Holy Catholic Church; and her desire was to hear whether the B. would grant the Roman Church, not only that which is in the city or diocese of Rome, but all that are agreed with it, to be it?
Thirdly, what precise form of words the Lady did use, the Jesuit did not remember perfectly, and therefore did not adventure to set down; but by the B.’s answer, which he perfectly remembered, and so set down in these words, "It was," he thinketh that her question was, Whether the Roman Church was not the right Church? viz. once, or in time past, before Luther and others made a breach from it? To which question so uttered, or so understood, as it seems by the answer, and the ensuing discourse made by the B. it was understood, the B. might truly, and certainly did, answer, as is related; to wit, not "It is," but "It was," viz. once, or in time past, the right Church. For so the Chaplain doth here confess, p. 37, "The time was, &c. that you and we were all of one belief." Out of which answer it may be that the B. suspected that the Lady would infer; If once it were the right, what hindereth it now to be? since it did not depart from the Protestant Church, but the Protestant Church departed from it. And therefore, as in the text, he was willing to grant that the Protestants made a rent or division from it, &c.—A.C. marg. note to p. 53.]
§ 20. B. I.—One occasion, which moved Tertullian to write his book de Praescript. adversus Haereticos, was, that he saw [143] little or no profit come by disputations.28 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, S. Stephen would not have disputed with the Cyrenians [Acts vi. 9.], nor S. Paul with the Grecians [Acts ix. 29.], first; and then with the Jews and all comers [Acts xix. 17.]. No sure: it was some abuse in the disputants that frustrated the good of the disputation. And one abuse in the disputants is "a resolution to hold their own, though it be by unworthy means, and disparagement of truth."29 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.30 There is a great deal of difference, especially as Romanists handle the question of the Church, between the Church and a Church; and there is some between a true Church and a right Church, which is the word you use, but no man else that I know: I am sure not I.
II.—For "the Church" may import in our language "the only true Church;" and, perhaps, as some of you seem to make it, "the root and the ground of the Catholic." And this I never did grant of the Roman Church, nor ever mean to do. But "a Church" can imply no more than that it is a member of the whole. And this I never did nor ever will deny, if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a "true Church," I granted also; but not a "right," as you impose upon me. For ens and verum, "being" and "true," are convertible one with another; and every thing that hath a being is truly that being which it is, in truth of substance. But this word "right" is not so used, but is referred more properly to perfection in conditions: and in this sense every thing that hath a true and real being is not, by and by, right in the conditions of it. A man that is most dishonest, [144] and unworthy the name—a very thief, if you will—is a true man in the verity of his essence, as he is a creature endued with reason; for this none can steal from him, nor he from himself, but death: but he is not therefore a right or an upright man. And a Church that is exceeding corrupt, both in manners and doctrine, and so a dishonour to the name, is yet a true Church in the verity of essence; as a Church is a company of men which profess the faith of Christ, and are baptized into His name: but yet it is not therefore a "right" Church, either in doctrine or manners. It may be you meant cunningly to slip in this word "right," that I might at unawares grant it orthodox. But I was not so to be caught; for I know well that orthodox Christians are "keepers of integrity, and followers of right things" (so S. Augustine31) of which the Church of Rome at this day is neither. In this sense, then, no "right," that is, no "orthodox" Church at Rome.
III.—And yet no news it is, that I granted the Roman Church to be a true Church. For so much very learned Protestants have acknowledged before me, and the truth cannot deny it.32 For that Church which receives the Scripture as a rule of faith, though but as partial and imperfect rule, and both the sacraments as instrumental causes and seals of grace, though they add more and misuse these, yet cannot but be a true Church in essence. How it is in manners and doctrine, I would you would look to it with a single eye; [145] "for if piety and a peaceable mind be not joined to a good understanding, nothing can be known in these great things."33
IV.—Here A. C. tells us, "That the Jesuit doth not say that the Lady asked this question in this or any other precise . form of words; but saith, the Jesuit is sure her desire was to know of me, whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church?" [A. C. P. 53.] And how was the Jesuit sure the Lady desired to hear this from me? Why, A.C. tells us that too: for he adds, "That the Jesuit had particularly spoken with her before, and wished her to insist upon that point." [A. C. p. 54.] Where you may see, and it is fit the Clergy of England should consider with what cunning adversaries they have to deal, who can find a way to prepare their disciples, and instruct them beforehand upon what points to insist,34 that so they may with more ease slide that into their hearts and consciences, which should never come there. And this once known, I hope they will the better provide against it. But A.C. goes on, and tells us, "That certainly by my answer, the Lady’s desire must needs be to hear from me, not whether the Church of Rome were a right Church, &c.; but whether I would grant that there is but one Holy Catholic Church, and whether the Roman Church—that is, not only that which is in the city or diocese of Rome, but all that agreed with it—be not it." [A.C. p. 54.] About "a Church," and "the Church," I have said enough before,35 and shall not repeat. Nor is there any need I should; for A.C. would have it "The Church, the one, holy, Catholic Church." But this cannot be granted, take the Roman Church in what sense they please, in city, or diocese, or all that agree with it. Yet, howsoever, before I leave this, I must acquaint the reader with a perfect Jesuitism. In all the primitive times of the Church, a man, or a family, or a national Church, [146] were accounted right and orthodox, as they agreed with the Catholic Church; but the Catholic was never then measured or judged by man, family, or nation. But now, in the Jesuit’s new school, the one Holy Catholic Church36 must be measured by that which is in the city or diocese of Rome, or of them which agreed with it, and not Rome by the Catholic. For so A.C. says expressly, "The Lady would know of me, not whether that were the Catholic Church to which Rome agreed, but whether that were not the Holy Catholic Church, which agreed with Rome." So upon the matter, belike the Christian faith was committed to the custody of the Roman, not of the Catholic, Church; and a man cannot agree with the Catholic Church of Christ, in this new doctrine of A.C., unless he agree with the Church of Rome: but if he agree with that, all is safe, and he is as orthodox as he need be.
V.—But A.C. is yet troubled about the form of the Lady’s question: and he will not have it, "That she desired to know, whether I would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church?" though these be her words, according to the Jesuit’s own setting down [A.C. p. 54.]; but he thinks the question was, "Whether the Church of Rome was not the right Church?" Not "be not," but "was not." "Was not?" that is, "was not once or in time past the right Church, before Luther and others made a breach from it?" Why truly A.C. need not have troubled himself half so much about this. For [147] let him take his choice: it shall be all one to me, whether the question were asked by "be," or by "was." For the Church of Rome neither "is " nor "was" the right Church, as the Lady desired to hear. A particular Church it is, and was, and in some times right, and in some times wrong; and then in some things right, and in some things wrong: but "the right Church," or "the Holy Catholic Church," it never was, nor ever can be; and, therefore, was not such before Luther and others either left it, or were thrust from it. A "particular" Church it was; but then A.C. is not distinct enough here neither. For the Church of Rome both was, and was not, a "right" or orthodox Church, before Luther made a breach from it. For the word ante, "before," may look upon Rome and that Church a great way off, or long before; and then in the prime times of it, it was a most "right" and orthodox Church. But it may look also nearer home, and upon the immediate times before Luther, or some ages before that; and then in those times Rome was a corrupt and a tainted Church, far from being right.37 And yet [148] both these times before Luther made his breach. So here A.C. should have been more distinct. For the word "before" includes the whole time before Luther, in part of which time that Church of Rome was right, and in other part whereof it was wrong. But A.C. adds yet, "That I suspected the Lady would infer, if once that Church were right, what hindered it now to be? since, that did not depart from the Protestant Church, but the Protestant Church from it." [A.C. p. 54.] Truly, I neither suspected the inference would be made, nor fear it when it is made. For it is no news that any particular Church, Roman as well as another, may once have been right, and afterwards wrong, and in far worse case. And so it was in Rome after "the enemy had sowed tares among the wheat." [Matt. xiii. 25.] But whether these tares were sown while their Bishops slept, or whether they themselves38 did not help to sow them, is too large a disquisition for this place. So though it were once right, yet the tares which grow thick in it, are the cause why it is not so now. And then, though that Church did not depart from the Protestants’ Church, yet if it gave great and just cause for the Protestant Church to depart from the errors of it, while it in [149] some particulars departed from the truth of Christ, it comes all to one for this particular, that the Roman Church, which was once right, is now become wrong, by embracing superstition and error.
1 131m Dixi sicut ei congruebat, ad quem scribebam.—S. Augustin. Retractat. lib. i. cap. 13. [Op., tom. i. col. 20. E.]
2 131n Nor is it such a strange thing to bear that Scripture is such a supposed principle among Christians. Quod a Scriptura evidenter dedticitur, est evidenter verum, suppositis Scripturis.—Bellarm. de Eccl. Milit. lib. iv. [i. e. de notis Ecclesiae,] cap. 3. § 3. [Op., tom. ii. col. 167. C.]
3 131o De subjecto enim quaeritur semper; non subjectum ipsum.
4 132p Quarto, necesse est [nosse, extare libros aliquos vere divinos, quod certe nullo mode ex Scripturis haberi posset.—Bellarmin.] de verbo Dei, lib. iv. cap. 4 [Op., tom. i. col. 175.B] And the Jesuit here, apud A.C. p. 49.
5 [to ... A.C.]
6 133q [Eccl. Polit.] Book iii. chap. viii. [Sect. 14. ubi sup. p. 103.]
7 133r Whereas Bellarmine says expressly, that in the controversies between you and us: [Agendum est enim non de stillicidiis et fundis, non de rebus levibus, quae parum refert, utrum sic an aliter se habeant:] non de metaphysicis subtilitatibus, quae sine periculo ignorari, et interdum etiam cum laude oppugnari possunt, &c.—Bellarm. Praefat. Operibus praefix. § 3. [Op., tom. i.]
8 134s [Porro] his omnibus quaestionibus praemittenda erit, [quasi magnum quoddam prooemium,] controversia de verbo Dei. Neque enim disputari potest, nisi prius in aliquo communi principio cum adversariis conveniamus: convenit autem inter nos et omnes ominino haereticos, verbum Dei esse regulam fidei, ex qua de dogmatibus judicandum sit: esse commune principium ab omnibus concessum, unde argumenta ducantur: [denique esse gladium spiritualem, qui in hoc certamine recusari non possit.]—Bellarmin. Praefat. Operibus praefix. § ult. [Op., tom. i.] And if it be commune principium ab omnibus concessum, then I hope it must he taken as a thing supposed, or as a praecognitum, in this dispute between us.
9 [for …. Editt., 1673, and 1686.]
10 134t Colligitur aperte ex Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. 1. Q[uaest.] i. A[rt.] 5. [Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod nihil prohibet id, quod est certius secundum naturam, esse quoad nos minus certum, propter debilitatem intellectus nostri .... Unde dubitatio, quae accidit in aliquibus circa articulos fidei, non est propter incertitudinem rei, sed propter debilitatem intellectus humani: et tamen minimum, quod potest haberi de cognitione rerum altissimarum, desiderabilius est, quam certissima cognitio quae habetur de minimis rebus]—[Tametsi enim] articulorum fidei veritas non potest nobis esse evidens absolute, [tamen potest esse evidens ex hypothesi, id est, supposita veritate Scripturarum.]—Bellarmin. de notis Ecclesiae, lib. iv. cap. 3. § 2. [Op., tom. ii. col. 167.C.]
11 135u Sect. xvii. xviii. No. 2. [ubi sup. p. 131, and p. 134.]
12 135x And my immediate words in the Conference, upon which the Jesuit asked, How I knew Scripture to be Scripture? were (as the Jesuit himself relates it, apud A.C. p. 48.) "That the Scripture only, not any unwritten tradition, was the foundation of our faith." Now the Scripture cannot be the only foundation of faith, if it contain not all things necessary to salvation; which the Church of Rome, denying against all antiquity, makes it now become a question. And in regard of this, my answer was, That the Scriptures are and must he principles supposed, and praecognitae, before the handling of this question.
13 136y Hooker, [Eccl. Polit.] Book iii. chap. viii. [Sect. 14. ubi sup. p. 103, and p. 133
14 137z [RESPONDEO dicendum,] Sacram doctrinam esse scientiam. Sed sciendum est, quod duplex est scientiarum genus. Quaedam enim sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine naturali intellectus, sicut Arithmetica, Geometria, et hujusmodi. Quaedam vero sunt, quae procedunt ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae: sicut perspectiva procedit ex principiis notificatis per geometriam, et musica ex principiis per arithmeticam notis. Et] hoc modo sacra doctrina est scientia; quia procedit ex principiis notis lumine superioris scientiae, quae scilicet est scientia Dei et beatorum. [Unde sicut musica credit principia tradita sibi ab arithmetico, ita doctrina sacra credit principia revelata sibi a Deo.]—Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] par. l. Q[uaest.] i. A[rt.] 2.—And what says A.C. now to this or 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 provable 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 Apostles, 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 their knowledge; therefore 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 infallible, and able to breed in us divine and infallible faith," as A.C. adds, pp. 51, 52, is a proposition, which, in the times of the primitive Church, would have been accounted very dangerous, as indeed it is. For I would fain know why leaning too much upon tradition may not mislead Christians, as well as it did the Jews. But they, saith S. Hilary, [Ipse respondit, omnem plantationem, quae non a Patre sit, eradicandam dicens, id est,] traditionem [hominum eruendam,] cujus favore legis proacepta transgressi sunt.—[S. Hilar.] Canon. xiv. in S. Matth. [xv. 13. (al. Comment. in S. Matth. cap. xiv. 1.) Op., col. 685.A. ed. Benedict.]—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 is, Jer. v. 31, "The prophets prophesy untruths, and the priests receive gifts, and My people delight therein: what will become of this in the end?"
15 137a [Ad secundum, quod Deus non creditur esse auctor hujus scientiae, nisi quia homo hoc testificatur: dicendum quod] non creditur Deus esse auctor hujus scientiae, quia homines hoc testati sint in quantum homines nudo testimonio humano, sed in quantum circa eos effulsit virtus divina, et ita Deui eis, et sibi ipsi in eis, testimonium perhibuit. [Quod autem credimus posterioribus circa quos non apparent virtutes divinae, hoc est quia non praedicant alia quam quae illi in scriptis certissimis reliquerunt, quae constat per medios in nullo fuisse vitiata ex consensione concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra.]—Henr. a Gand.. Summ. p[ar.] i. A[rt.] ix. Q[uaest.] 3. [§. 13. p. 180.]
16 138b Corrumpi non possunt, quia in manibus sunt omnium Christianorum ... quisquis [enim] hoc primitus ausus esset, multorum codicum vetustiorum collatione confutaretur: maxime, quia non una lingua, sed multis, [eadem] Scriptura contineretur. [Nam etiam nunc] nonnullae autem codicum mendositates, vel de antiquioribus, vel de lingua praecedente, emendantur.—S. Augustin. lib. xxxii. cont. Faustum, c. 16. [Op., tom. viii. col. 459.D. ubi sup. p. 106. note y.]
17 138c Maldonat[us, Comment.] in S. Joann. ix. [29. Scire si Mosi, quem ipsi praeceptorem sequantur, locutum esse Deum;] itaque non magis errare posse eum sequentes, quam si Deum Ipsum sequerentur.
18 138d [S. Chrysostom.] Hom. lvii. in S. Johann. ix. [29. Hom. lviii. Op., tom. viii. p. 340.C.] hêmeis oidamen [hoti Môsei lelalêken ho theos,] tinos eimontos; tinos apaggeilantos; tôn progonôn, phêsi, tôn hêmeterôn.
19 138e S. Chrysostom. ubi supra: kai ouk eipan, hêmeis êkousamen, [hoti Môsei lelalêken ho theos,] all’ hoti oidamen.
20 139f [Consequetur namque omnium literarum summa perversio, et omnium qui memoriae mandati sunt librorum abolitio, si quod tanta populorum religione roboratum est,] tanta hominum et temporum consensione firmatum, [in hanc dubitationem adducitur, ut ne historiae quidem vulgaris fidem possit gravitatemque obtinere.]—S. Augustin. lib. de moribus Eccles. Cathol [et Manich. lib. i.] cap. 29. [Op., tom. i. col. 707.F.]—[Tu in] eos libros, [qui,] quoquo modo se habent, sancti tamen divinarum-[que] rerum pleni, prope totius generis humani confessione diffamantur, [sine duce irruis, et de his sine praeceptore audes ferre sententiam.]—S.Augustin. de util. credendi, cap.vii. [Op.,tom. viii. col. 56.B.]—Et, [Sibylla porro, vel Sibyllae, et Orpheus, et nescio quis Hermes, et si qui alii vates, vel theologi, vel sapientes, vel philosophi gentium, de Filio Dei vera praedixisse, seu dixisse, perhibentur, valet quidem aliquid ad paganorum vanitatem revincendam, non tamen ad istorum auctoritatem amplectendam; cum illum Deum nos colere ostendimus, de quo nec illi tacere potuerunt, qui suos congentiles populos idola et daemonia colenda partim docere ausi sunt, partim prohibere ausi non sunt.—S. Augustin. ] contra Faustum, lib. xiii. cap. 15. [Op., tom. viii. col. 260.A.B.]
21 140g [Civitatem Dei dicimus, cujus ea Scriptura testis est, quae non fortuitis motibus animorum, sed plane summae dipositione providentiae,] super omnes omnium gentium literas, [omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum divina excellens auctoritate subjecit.]—S. Augustin, de civitate Dei, lib. xi. cap. 1. [Op., tom. vii. col. 271.D.]
22 140h Incertum [ergo] esse non potest hos esse libros canonicos, [et habere pondus auctoritatis sum, quibus Ecclesia declarata per omnes gentes, et ab apostolis propaganta, testimonium certum reddit.]—[Thom. Waldens. Doctrinal. Fidei, tom. i. lib. 2. art. ii. cap. 20. No. 3. fol. 102. col. 1. ed. Paris. 1532.]
23 140i Canus, Loc. Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 8. facit Ecclesiam causam sine qua non. [His words are: Non est enim Ecclesiae auctoritas ratio per se prorsus ad credendum, sed causa sine qua non crederemus.—P. 59. ed. Lovan. 1569.]
24 140k Sect. xvi. [No. 6. ubi sup. p. 77.]
25 141(l) Sic in alia causa, [sc. de definitione hominis,] S.Augustinus [his verbis: sc. Illud est magis quod mihi hoc loco quaerendum videtur, cum] inter omnes pene constet, aut certe, id quod satis est, inter me atque illos cum quibus nunc agitur hoc conveniat, [ex anima et corpore nos esse compositos, quid est ipse homo, utrumque horum quae nominavi, an corpus tantummodo, an tantummodo anima?]—De moribus Eccl. Cathol. [et Manichaeor. lib. i.] cap. 4. [Op., tom, i. col. 689.F.]
26 141m [Cum sit perfectus scripturarum canon, sibique ad omnia satis superque sufficiat, quid opus est, ut ei ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur auctoritas? Quia videlicet &c.—Vin. Lirinens. contra Haeres. cap. ii. [p. 5.]
27 142n Contr. Epist. Fund. cap. v. [ubi sup. p. 93. note q.]
28 143o [Adversus haereticos sive haereses tum temporis grassantes scripturus Tertullianus,] videns disputationibus nihil aut parum profici.—Pamelius in Summario, [praefixo] lib. [Tertullian. de praescript. adversus haeretic. Op., p. 233. ed. Pamelli, Colon. 1617.]
29 143p [Hoc tibi, cum voles, manifestissimum faciam, et comminui et] debilitari generosam indolem, in istas argutias conjectam.—Senec. Epist, xlviii. [Op., p. 258. ed. Paris. 1607.]
30 143q Here A.C. hath nothing to say, but that the Jesuit did not affirm, "That the Lady asked this question in this or any other precise form." No? Why, the words preceding are the Jesuit’s own. Therefore, if these were not the Lady’s words, he wrongs her, not I him.
31 144r [Quae cum ita sint, neque in confusione paganorum, neque in purgamentis haereticorum, neque in languore schismaticorum, neque in coecitate Judaeorum, quaerenda est religio, sed apud eos solos, qui Christiani, catholici, vel orthodoxi nominantur, id est,] integritatis custodes, et recta sectantes.—[S. Augustin. lib.] de vera religione, cap. v. [Op., tom. i. col. 751.D.]
32 144s ["Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held, and do hold, fellowship with them, (of the Church of Rome,) …. touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ," &c.]—Hooker, Eccl. Polit. B. iii. Ch. i. [Sect. 2. Works, vol. i. p. 438.ed.Keble.]—[Ita etiam] falluntur [utrique, tum] qui ecclesiam esse negant, quia papatus in ea est, [quam ii qui papatum affirmant Ecclesiam ipsam esse.]—Junius, de Ecclesia, lib. [singular.] cap. xvii. [de Ecclesia Romana. Op., tom. ii. col. 1020. ed. Genev. 1613.]—And Reynolds, Thes. v. negat tantum [Romanam ecclesiam] esse Catholicam, vel sanum membrum [Catholicae.]—[Johan. Rainoldi Sex Theses de SS. et Ecclesia: Thes. v. in tit. p. 123. ed. Lond. 1602.] Nay, the very Separatists grant it: Fr. Johnson, in his treatise called, A Christian Plea, printed 1617, p. 123, &c. ["How can we soundly defend and retain the visible baptism received in the Church of Rome .... if we do not accordingly acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a visible Church and the people of God ... a visible Church, I say, though miserably corrupted, &c." A Christian Plea conteyning three Treatises. 1. The first touching the Anabaptists, and others mainteyning some like errors with them, &c. Made by Francis Johnson, Pastour of the ancient English Church now sojourning at Amsterdam in the Lowe Countreyes. (No place.) Printed in the year of our Lord, 1617.]
33 145t Si tamen bono ingenio pietas et pax quaedam mentis accedat, sine qua de tantis rebus nihil prorsus intelligi potest.—S. Augustin. lib. de util. cred. cap. xviii. [Op., tom. viii. col. 70.D.]
34 145u And after A.C. saith again, p. 54, "that the Lady did not ask the question, as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing what I said," so belike they take caution beforehand for that too, that whatever we say, unless we grant what they would have, their proselytes shall not be satisfied with it.
35 145x Sect. xx. No. 1. [ubi sup. p. 143.1
36 146y And though Stapleton, to magnify the Church of Rome, is pleased to say, [Sola Romana Ecclesia adeo est catholica, ut] apud veteres pro eodem habita fuerit. Romana Ecclesia, [fides, societas,] et catholica ecclesia, [fides, societas:] yet he is so modest as to give this reason of it: [Obtinuit autem apud veteres hic loquendi modus, non quia solius urbis aut dioecesis Romanae populus ecclesiam catholicam constituit, (est enim particularis et pars catholicae,) sed] quia ejus communio erat evidenter et certissime cum tota [ecclesia] catholica.—Relect. Controv. [Controv.] 1. [de ecclesia in se,] Q[uaest.] v. A[rt.] 3. [Op., tom. i. p. 594. B.C.] Lo, the communion of the Roman was then with the Catholic Church, not of the Catholic with it. And S. Cyprian employed his legates, Caldonius and Fortunatus, not to bring the Catholic Church to the communion of Rome, but Rome to the Catholic Church: [Quod servis Dei et maxime sacerdotibus justis et pacificis congruebat, frater carissime, miseramus nuper collegas nostros Caldonium et Fortunatum, ut non tantum persuasione literarum nostrarum, sed praesentia sua et consillo omnium vestrum eniterentur, quantum possent, et] elaborarent, ut ad catholicae ecclesiae unitatem corporis membra componerent, [et Christianae caritatis vinculo copularent.] Now the members of this rent and torn body were they of Rome, then in an open schism between Cornelius and Novatian.—S. Cyprian. lib. ii. Epist. 10. [ad Cornelium, Epist. xlii. Op., p. 56. ed. Benedict.]
37 147z Cum infiniti abusus, schismata quoque et haereses, per totum nunc Christianum orbem invalescant, Ecclesiam Dei legitima indigere reformatione nemini non apertum erit.—Petri de Alliaco, Card. Cameracensis, lib. [tractat.] de Reformatione Ecclesiae, [oblat. in Concil. Constant. an. 1415/6. apud J. Gerson. Op., tom. ii. col. 903, et seqq. ed. Dupin. Antw. 1706. The above words do not occur in this Tract as printed in Gerson’s work: they are to he found, in an editorial Conclusion, by O. Gratius, apud Fasciculum rerum expetendarum ac fugiendarum, per Orthuinum Gratium collect. fol. cciii.–ccviii. ed. Colon. 1535. Similar expressions occur throughout the Tract itself: Summopere vigilandum est circa reformationem ecclesiae.—col. 904.A. apud Gerson.—Propter defectum celebrationis conciliorum, Ecclesia in diversa schismata et alia innumerabilia mala, forte etiam ad haereses disponentia, proh dolor! lapsa sit, sicut experientia docet.—lbid. col. 905.B.—Reformatio totius corporis Ecclesiae, et particularis ecclesiae Romanae, est de arduis pertinentibus ad fidem: nam ejus generalis deformatio non mediocriter fidem tangit, et per consequens ejus reformatio.—Ibid. D.] And if schisms and heresies did then invade the whole Christian world, let A.C. consider how Rome escaped free. And I think Cameracensis was in this prophetical. For sixty years and more before Luther was horn, and so before the great troubles which have since fallen upon all Christendom, he used these words in the book which himself delivered up in the Council of Constance: [Haec autem Deus misericordissimus, qui solus ex malis bona novit elicere, ideo permittere credendus est, ut eorum occasione Ecclesia sua in melius reformetur. Quod] nisi celeriter fiat, audeo dicere quod licet magna sint quae videmus, tamen brevi incomparabiliter majora videbimus, et post ista tonitrua tam horrenda, alia [horribiliora in proximo] audiemus.—[Ibid. col. 905.A.] And it will hardly sink into any man’s judgment that so great a man as Pet. de Alliaco was in that Church, should speak thus, if he did not see some errors in the doctrine of that Church, as well as in manners. Nay, Cassander, though he lived and died in the communion of the Church of Rome, yet found fault with some of her doctrines. Consultat. Artic. xxi. xxii. [De cultu Sanctorum .... in quibus omnibus haud leves abusus et superstitiones irrepsisse negari non potest.—P. 964.—Alter error est quod homines .... unico illo advocationis Christi officio obscurato, sanctos atque imprimis Virginem Matrem in Illius locum substituerunt.—P. 970. And in the following sections on the veneration of Relics, pp. 972, 973; the cultus of Images, pp. 974–981; the administration of the Eucharist under both kinds, &c. pp. 981–984; Extreme unction, pp. 985, 986. Op., ed. Paris. 1616.] And Pope Julius the Third professed at Bononia, [Concilium interim Bononiam translatum, paulo post suspensum, et mortuo Paulo intermissum, successor Julius III. redauspicatus est, Bononiae antea Sessions XI. palam professus,] in Sacramentorum Ecclesiae ministerium innumerabiles abusus irrepsisse.—[Claud.] Espencaeus in [Epist. ad] Titum, cap. 1. [Op., p. 480. col. 2.A. ed. Paris. 1619,] And yet he was one of the bishops, nay the chief legate, in the Council of Trent.
38 148a For A.C. knows well what strange doctrines are charged upon some popes. And all Bellarmine’s labour, though great and full of art, is not able to wash them clean. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. capp. 8–14. [Op., tom. i. coll. 819–856. In these chapters the errors charged against several popes are examined at full.] Et papas quosdam graves errores seminasse in ecclesia Christi luce clarius est. Et probatura Jacob. Almain. Opusc. de Auctoritat. Ecclesiae, cap. 10, [of which the conclusion is: Ex his manifesto sequitur, Papam non solum errore personali, sed et errore judiciali errare posse in materia fidei, sicut et in aliis materiis.—Tractat. de Auctoritat. Eccles. et concil. general. adversus Thom. do Vio. apud Jo. Gerson. Op., tom. ii. col. 1005.A.] And Cassander speaks it out more plainly: [Quod autem Bernardus addit: Haec omnia in variam transire superstitionem, in quam non inciderent, si rationi adorationis ac veri cultus attenderent, aut, si ignorant, informationem humiliter acciperent, recte quidem dicitur: sed] utinam illi (he speaks of the bishops and rectors in the Roman Church), a quibus haec informatio accipienda esset, non ipsi harum superstitionum auctores essent; vel certe eas in animis hominum simplicium aliquando quaestus causa nutrirent.—Cassand. Consultat. Art. 21. [de imaginib.] versus fin. [pp. 979, 980.]
| Top |