A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church, Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 8
A. D.
CHAP. VIII. That no naturall wit or learning can be the rule of faith.
A. W.
If you had beſtowed that paines and time in confirming your propoſition, which you waſte needleſly in proouing that, which no man denieth: you might perhaps hauehave ſpoken ſomewhat more to the purpoſe, but it is loſt labour to go about the refutatiō of that, which beſides your ſelfe, no body euer thought on. That naturall wit or learning ſhould be the rule of faith, is a conceit, amongſt Chriſtians neuer heard of, yet this hauehave you propounded for to exerciſe your ſtrength vponupon.
A. D. §. 1.
The ſecond concluſion is, that no one mans naturall wit and learning; neither any company of men neuer ſo learned (onelyonly as they are learned men, not infallibly aſſiſted by the holy Spirit of God) can, either by interpreting Scripture, or otherwiſe, be this rule of faith.
A. W.
Here you ſet out the former propoſition more at large, in reſpect of the Antecedent, or firſt part of it. Neither any one mans naturall wit, nor many mens ioyned together, whatſoeuer their learning be, or what courſe ſoeuer they take, as naturall men, can be the rule of faith: either for any doctrine, they ſhal deliuer, or for any interpretation, they ſhall make of Scripture. But what needeth all this adoe? you do but fight with your owne ſhadow, yet let vsus ſe how you hauehave beſtirred your ſelfe.
A. D. §. 2.
This I prooue. Becauſe all this wit and learning, be it neuer ſo exquiſite or rare, is humane, naturall, and fallible: and therefore it cannot be a ſufficient foundation, whereupon to build a diuine, ſupernaturall, and infallible faith.
This reaſon I confirme. Becauſe whatſoeuer a man, neuer ſo wittie and learned propoundeth to others, to be beleeued, vponupon the onelyonly credit of his word, wit, or humane ſtudie and learning: it can hauehave no more certaintie, then is this his word, wit, and learning. But theſe being all naturall and humane, are ſubiect to errour, and deceit. For Omnis homo mendax, there is no man, but he may, Rom. 3. 4.both deceiue, and be deceiued: and may (if he hauehave no other helpe, but of nature, and induſtrie) both be deceiued, in thinking that to be Gods word, which is not: or that to be the true meaning, and ſenſe of Gods word, which is not: and may alſo deceiue others, whileſt being too confident of his wit and learning, he preſumeth to teach others, theſe his erroneous opinions. Therefore the beleefe which ſhall be built vponupon ſuch a mans word, and teaching, is, or may be a falſe beleefe: and alwaies is vncertaine and fallible: and therefore can neuer be a true Diuine and Chriſtian faith, which alwaies is moſt certaine and infallible. And this which I hauehave ſaid of the wit and learning of one particular man: may alſo be applied, to prooue againſt the wit and learning of any companie of men, hauing no aſſiſtance, but their owne naturall gifts, and induſtrie of ſtudie or reading.
A. W.
No humane, naturall, and fallible thing can be the rule of faith.
Naturall wit and learning, though neuer ſo exquiſite, are humane, naturall, and fallible.
Therefore no humane wit nor learning can be the rule of faith.
I grant this reaſon and concluſion to be ſound and true: onelyonly in the confirmation of it, I finde ſome occaſion to note one thing for the better vnderſtanding of the matter, we hauehave in hand. If any man would ſpeake for naturall wit, and learning in this queſtion, he would not ſay, as the matter is here propounded, that any mans wit or learning were the rule of faith, but that the wit and learning of man might finde out ſomewhat at leaſt in the Scripture, whereupon faith might ſafely be grounded. For example (as I ſaid once before) though it be not written any where in the Scripture, that there are three perſons diſtinct each from other, and all theſe three but one God: yet may a man by naturall wit and learning gather this out of the Scripture, and confirme it thence ſo plainely, and certainly, that any Chriſtian may holde thoſe points as Articles of faith. Not that they are to be taken for ſuch, vponupon the onelyonly credit of his word, (which is a ſecond thing, wherein you miſtake the matter) but becauſe, though euerie man be a lier; yet a man may ſee and ſhew a truth, which cannot, nor may be ſuſpected of falſhood or errour. And a beleefe, builded vponupon Doctrine ſo taught, ſhall be free from poſſibilitie of erring, and as you ſpeake, infallible. This I thought good to obſerue by occaſion of your confirmation, where you ſuppoſe, that a man deliuereth matters to be beleeued, vponupon the bare credit of his word, by reaſon of his wit and learning. In this ſenſe it is out of all queſtion, that no naturall wit or learning of any, many, or all the men in the world, can be the rule of faith, but that, which a man deduceth by neceſſarie and certaine conſequence, through his wit and learning, out of the Scriptures, is as ſtrong and ſure a foundation of faith, as that, which is expreſſed there in plaine termes. VVe may ſee by this, it was not for nothing, that fBellar. de verb. Dei non ſcript. lib. 4. cap. 3.Bellarmine, and you by his example, foyſt in expreſſely into the queſtion, which is betwixt vsus, concerning the ſufficiencie of the Scriptures to be the rule of faith. But of this enough.
A. D. §. 3.
This ſame reaſon I confirme yet againe more ſtrongly. For the rule of faith muſt be able to propoſe to vsus vnfallibly, not onelyonly the letters and ſeeming ſenſe, but the true ſenſe of Gods word, and the ſenſe intended by the holy Spirit of God, the author of this word; otherwiſe it cannot be a ſufficient meanes to breed in vsus an infallible Christian faith and beleefe, which is onelyonly grounded vponupon the true ſenſe intended by Almightie God, the prime or firſt veritie, the ſpeaker of this word. But no man, nor no companie of men can by their natural wit and learning tel vnfallibly what (eſpecially in all points of faith) is the true intended ſenſe of Gods word. For as S. Paul ſaith, Quis cognouit ſenſum Domini? Who hath knowne (to wit, by nature, art or learning) the ſenſe of our Lord? Quae Dei ſunt (ſaith the ſame S. Paul) nemo cognouit niſi ſpiritus Dei: thoſe things which are of God, no man hath knowne, but the ſpirit of God. And therefore that knowledge which himſelfe had of diuine matters, came not from any naturall wit of man, but (as he plainly affirmeth) from the ſpirit of God: Nobis reuelauit Deus per Spiritum ſuum: God hath reuealed vntounto vsus (ſaith he) by his Spirit. Therefore we may well conclude, That no one man, nor no companie of men (without the aſſiſtance of Gods ſpirit) can either by interpreting Scripture, or otherwiſe be the rule of faith.
A. W.
It ſeemeth the former reaſon did not fully ſatisfie your ſelfe, becauſe you make profeſſion of a more ſtrong confirmation thereof: which lieth thus:
The rule of faith muſt be able to propoſe infallibly to vsus the true ſence of the word of God, intended by the holy Ghoſt.
But no naturall wit or learning is able to propoſe infallibly that ſence.
Therefore no naturall wit or learning can be the rule of faith.
I hauehave made bold to alter your propoſition or maior a little, To the Propoſition.as I perſwade my ſelfe not without reaſon. You make a kind of difference betwixt the true ſenſe of Gods word, and the ſenſe intended by the holy Ghoſt. Theſe two in my poore opinion are all one: for there is no ſenſe of any peece of Scripture to be accoūted true, but that vvhichwhich deliuereth the holy Ghoſts meaning in that place. The reaſon is, for that the vſe of interpretatiō is nothing elſe but to make vsus vnderſtand what the Lord meant to teach vsus, or to ſay to vsus by thoſe words. I deny not, that a man may deliuer true and ſound diuinitie, though he miſconceiue & miſinterprete a text of Scriptures but this is that I ſay, that howſoeuer he teach true doctrine by his expoſition, yet he doth not giuegive vsus the true ſenſe of that word of God, if he propound nor the ſenſe which was there intended by the holy Ghoſt; euerie truth of God, is not the true ſenſe of eueryevery place of Scripture.
I will not except againſt your Syllogiſme, though you put ſomewhat more into the Aſſumption, then you propounded in To the Aſſumption.the maior: yet let me put you in mind, that both naturall wit and learning can ſhew the true ſenſe of Gods word in very many places; and alſo that by your confeſſion this may be done. Whence it will follow, that in all likelihood of reaſon, many points of faith are ſo deliuered in Scripture, that there needeth no infallible authoritie of the Church to teach vsus what is true in thoſe points, what falſe. To anſwer more directly to the Aſſumption; I ſee no ſufficient reaſon, why a man by wit and learning may not be able to vnderſtand, and that infallibly, what is true according to the letter of the Scripture, in matters neceſſary to ſaluation. I think I may truly ſay, that many a man attaineth to this knowledge, without any infallible aſſiſtance of the holy Ghoſt, whoſe principall office it is, ſo to ſanctifie, direct, and preſerue the children of God, that they neuer fall away by any ſuch opinion as ſhal make them loſe their intereſt they hauehave to the kingdome of heauen.
Your proofe, if it be ſufficient, ſheweth your exception, eſpecially in all points, to hauehave bin altogether needleſſe. For if the t1. Cor. 2. 16.Apoſtle in the place alledged, ſpeake of vnderſtanding the true ſenſe of the Scripture, no one place can be vnderſtood by any natural wit or learning. Who hath knowne the ſenſe of our Lord? Is not this ſpeech generall, as well of one place as of another? But it is euident, that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh not of vnderſtanding any or all places of Scripture. For the ſpirituall man he ſpeaketh of, attaineth not to that height of knowledge, no not in your owne iudgement, vnleſſe perhaps no man be ſpirituall but your Pope. And yet a man may well doubt, whether he be able to vnderſtand the meaning of the holy Ghoſt in eueryevery place or no, though it be granted he cannot erre iudicially. But Saint Paul thinketh not in that place of interpreting ſcripture. Of what then? Surely of acknowledging or aſſenting to the truth of the Goſpell, concerning ſaluation by Ieſus Chriſt. u1. Cor. 2. 9. Hugo Cardin. ad 1. Cor. 2.The things that God hath prepared for them that louelove him (viz. the meanes of ſaluation and glory by Chriſt) are ſuch as eye hath not ſeen, nor eare heard, yea ſuch as neuer entred into any mans heart. For who was able to hauehave deuiſed by any experience and obſeruation (to which the eye and eare are eſpeciall helpes) or by any diſcourſe of reaſon (wherein the heart is exerciſed) that the Sonne of God ſhould take our nature, and procure forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, and inheritance verſ. 16.of heauen for all them that would beleeue in him? This was onelyonly Gods will and counſell, which no man was priuie to, no man could inſtruct him in, or perſwade him to. Theſe things God only knew, theſe he reuealed by his ſpirit to the Patriarks, verſ. 10.Prophets and Apoſtles, who without ſuch reuelation, could neuer hauehave ſuſpected any ſuch matter. Now the queſtion is not in the Apoſtles courſe of writing, whether a man without reuelation can vnderſtand the meaning of the Scripture; but whether he could of himſelfe know, that there muſt be ſuch a means of ſaluation, or acknowledge the doctrine thereof to be true, without the teaching of the holy Ghoſt. The naturall man foreign receiueth not theſe things for true, or if you will, perceiueth not that there are ſuch meanes of his ſaluation. As for vnderſtanding of Scripture, ſince it is more then manifeſt, that a meere natural man may find the true ſenſe intēded by the holy Ghoſt, at the leaſt in many places, it cannot be the Apoſtles meaning, that no man knoweth the ſenſe of our Lord in the Scripture. But the more you miſtake the ſenſe of the holy Ghoſt in Scripture, the better you proue your opinion, that no naturall wit or learning can bring a man to the vnderſtanding thereof: onelyonly you muſt take heed of ouerweening your owne wit and learning, and ſo of erring, by drawing a generall concluſion againſt all men from your owne defect: which alſo perhaps is not ſo much for want of wit or learning, as for lacke of paines taking, and becauſe of a preiudicate conceit againſt the truth.
A. D. §. 4.
Hence I inferre that thoſe, who, for matters of faith, relie wholy, either vponupon their owne priuate opinion or iudgement, of the ſenſe and meaning of Scripture, or vponupon the learning and iudgement of others, who are but men, not infallibly aſſiſted by the holy Ghoſt, nor by him vnfallibly preſerued from errour: (as many, or rather all Proteſtants do) thoſe (I ſay) cannot hauehave diuine and Chriſtian faith, but onelyonly fallible opinion and humane faith.
As before I granted your concluſion, that naturall wit and learning cannot be the rule of faith: ſo I now acknowledge the truth of your illation, which you bring in thereupon, that he which relieth wholly vponupon his owne priuate opinion, or any other mans iudgement, can hauehave no true faith. Yet muſt I again remember, that to rely vponupon ſuch opinion or iudgement, is to take that for truth, which is taught barely vponupon the credit of the teacher. For otherwiſe, a man may hauehave a true faith, that is a certain and infallible aſſent to the truth, though he beleeue vponupon euident reaſon thoſe points & interpretations, which are proued to him by men, without any infallible authoritie of the Church. But whereas you charge many, or rather all Proteſtants to rely ſo vponupon the iudgement of men, I hope you do it without the authoritie of your Church that cannot erre; for I am ſure you do it without any ſhew of truth. No Proteſtant of any diſcretion (not onelyonly not all) beleeueth the doctrine of the Goſpell in generall, or any one particular interpretation as a matter of faith, vponupon any mans credit whatſoeuer. This reuerence indeed we giuegive to our teachers, that we rather truſt their iudgement then our owne, and dare not diſſent from them, but where we hauehave great likelihood of reaſon, at leaſt to the contrary. Howſoeuer, we ground no point of faith vponupon any interpretation, which is not plaine and euident to any man that will take paines to examine it according to true reaſon.