points and in particuler in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controuersies And so the very principle vpon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controuersies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular Controuersies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determent Controuersies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is Affirmatiue 27. Since then the Visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the reucaled Truths of Almighty God are conueyed to our Vnderstanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainely affirmeth when speaking of the Controuersy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This (r) Devnit Eccles c. 22. is neither openly nor euidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Sauiour had giuen testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church And a little after Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Sauiour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therfore with this argument Whosoeuer resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to vs God's Word or Reuelation commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation But whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth God's word or reuelation to vs Therfore whosoeuer resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which vnrepented excluds saluation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread ouer the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth euery one most seriously to ponder as a thing wheron eternall saluation dependeth And because our Aduersaries do heere most insist vpon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this euasion which shall be done in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controuersy And that the Catholique Visible Church cannot erre in either kind of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therfore if it be either vntrue or impertinent as they vnderstand apply it the whole edifice built theron must be ruinous and false For if you obiect their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity Mistaken plainely shewes that they differ only in points not fundamentall If you conuince them euen by their owne Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught diuers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neuertheles be saued because those errors were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwayes haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Pastors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and Doctrine Luther then forsooke and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Heresy they haue an Answere such as it is that the Catholique Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therfore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors vnder paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saued in their seuerall professions they salue this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is inough for saluation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could neuer be induced to giue a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring vs to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of diuers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from vs and amōg themselues And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibite any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serue them to any purpose but still they must remaine vncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they haue no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saued But of this more heerafter 2. And to the end that what shall be sayd concerning this distinction may be better vnderstood we are to obserue that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of fayth or our obligation to belieue diuine truths The one is by Deuines called Affirmatiue wherby we are obliged to haue a positiue explicite beliefe of some chiefe Articles of Christian faith The other is termed Negatiue which strictly binds vs not to disbelieue that is not to belieue the cōtrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our vnderstācing as reuealed or spoken by Almighty God The sayd Affirmatiue Precept according to the nature of such commands inioynes some act to be performed but not at all tymes nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all Obiects to be belieued For obiects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and seuerall belieued then other eyther because they are in themselues more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct vs in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selues or our Neyghbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For tymes we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of fayth but according as seuerall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negatiue doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige vniuersally all persons in respect of all obiects at all tymes semper pro semper as Deuines speake This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwayes helping my Neighbour because
the Affirmatiue precept of Charity bindeth onely in some particuler cases But I am alwayes bound by a Negatiue precept neuer to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwayes bound to vtter what I know to be true yet I am obliged neuer to speake any one least vntruth agaynst my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmatiue precept commanding vs to be at al times actually belieuing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged neuer to exercise any act against any one truth knowne to be reuealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but euery one is obliged not to belieue the contrary of any one point knowne to be testified by God For that were in fact to affirme that God could be deceiued or would deceiue which were to ouer throw the whole certainty of our faith wherin the thing most principall is not the point which we belieue which Deuines cal the Materiall Obiect but the chiefest is the Motiue for which we belieue to wit Almighty God's infallible reuelation or authority which they terme the Formall obiect of our faith In two senses therefore and with a double relation points of fayth may be called fundamentall and necessary to saluation The one is taken with reference to the Affirmatiue Precept when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and belieue them explicitely and seuerally In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith which D Potter (a) Pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to proue against his Aduersary who in expresse words doth grant and explicate (b) Charity Mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it But the Doctor thought good to dissemble the matter not say one pertinent word in defense of his distinction as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken and as it is wont to be applied by Protestants The other sense according to which points of faith may be called Fundamentall and necessary to saluation with reference to the Negatiue precept of faith is such that we cannot not without grieuous sinne and forfeiture of saluation disbelieue any one point sufficiently propounded as reuealed by Almighty God And in this sense we auouch that there is no distinction in points of faith as if to reiect some must be damnable and to reiect others equally proposed as God's word might stand with saluation Yea the obligation of the Negatiue precept is far more strict then is that of the Affirmatiue which God freely imposed may freely release But it is impossible that he can dispense or giue leaue to disbelieue or deny what he affirmeth and in this sense sinne damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamentall then from ignorance in Articles fundamentall All this I shew by an Example which I wish to be particularly noted for the present and for diuers other occasions hereafter The Creed of the Apostles containes diuers fundamentall points of faith as the Deity Trinity of Persons Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of our Sauiour Christ c. It containes also some points for their matter and narure in themselues not fundamentall as vnder what Iudge our Sauiour suffered that he was buried the circumstance of the time of his Resurrection the third day c. But yet neuerthelesse whosoeuer once knowes that these points are contained in the Apostles Creed the deniall of them is damnable and is in that sense a fundamentall error this is the precise point of the present question 3. And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true that no Protestant or Christian if he do but vnderstand the termes and state of the Question can possibly deny it In so much as I am amazed that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits should so enslaue themselues to their Predecessors in Protestantisme as stil to harp on this distinction neuer regard how impertinently and vntruly it was applyed by them at first to make all Protestants seeme to be of one fayth because forsooth they agree in fundamentall points For the difference among Protestants consists not in that some belieue some points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressely to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherein there is no difference betweene points fundamentall and not fundamentall Because till points fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as reuealed by God it is not agaynst faith to reiect them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them and the like is of points not fundamentall which assoone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as diuine Truths they can no more be denyed then points fundamentall propounded after the same manner Neither wil it auayle them to their other end that for preseruation of the Church in being it is sufficient that she do not erre in poins fundamentall For if in the meane time she maintaine any one Errour against Gods reuelation be the thing in it selfe neuer so small her Errour is damnable and destructiue of saluation 4. But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth finally ouer throw it yields to as much as we can desire For speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saued he sayth It is inough to belieue some things by a vertuall faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue faith whereby they are not denied or contradicted Now our question is in case that diuine truths although not fundamentall be denied and contradicted and therefore euen according to him all such deniall excludes saluation After he speakes more plainely It is true saith he whatsoeuer (d) pag. 212. is reuealed in Scripture or prepounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the diuine authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denied or contradicted without Infidelity such as euery Christian is bound with himility and reuerence to belieue whensoeuer the knowledge thereof is offered to him And further Where (e) pag. 250. the reuealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretique and Heresie is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Gal. 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is FVNDAMENTALL to a Christians FAITH and necessary for his saluation that he belieue all reuealed Truths of God whereof he may be conuinced that they are from God Can any thing be spoken more crearely or directly for vs that it is a Fundamentall error to deny any one point though neuer so small if once it be sufficiently
God not only by submitting our Will to his Will and Commaunds but by subiecting also our Vnderstanding to his Wisdome Words captiuating as the Apostle speakes the same Vnderstanding (b) 2. Cor. 10 â— to the Obedience of Fayth Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made cleere to vs the truths which now are certainely but not euidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it selfe not obedience but necessity coÌ„maunds our assent For this reason Deuines teach that the Obiects of Fayth being not euident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from belieuing by sufpending our Iudgement or exercising no act one way or other but also to disbelieue that is to belieue the contrary of that which Fayth proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnes This obscurity of fayth we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Fayth is the (c) Heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse (d) 1. Cor. 13. v. 12. in a darke manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter sayth Which you do well attending vnto as to (e) 2 Pet. 1. v. 19. a Candle shining in a darke place 3. Fayth being then obscure wherby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certaine and infallible wherin it surpasseth humane Opinion it must rely vpon some motiue and ground which may be able to giue it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motiue ground or formall Obiect of Fayth were any thing euidently presented to our vnderstanding and if also we did euidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we belieue our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but euident which as we said is against the nature of our Fayth If likewise the motiue or ground of our fayth were obscurely propounded to vs but were not in it selfe infallible it would leaue our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therfore for the ground of our Fayth find out a motiue obscure to vs but most certaine in it selfe that the act of fayth may remaine both obscure and certaine Such a motiue as this can be no other but the diuine Authority of almighty God reuealing or speaking those truths which our fayth belieues For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our fayth and yet not draw it out of Obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can euince that God reuealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had been no lesse perfect then he is although he had neuer reuealed any of those obiects which we now belieue 4. Neuertheles because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnes doth concur with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endured with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle sayth rationabile (f) Kom 12. 1. Obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoued to belieue with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certaine And therfore Almighty God obliging vs vnder paine of eternal damnation to belieue with greatest certainty diuers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot faile to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motiues and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the obiects which we belieue proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceiued and so Good that it cannot deceiue according to the words of Dauid Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Deuines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make vs euidently see what we belieue yet they cuidently conuince that in true wisdome and prudence the obiects of fayth deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things reuealed by God For without such reasons inducements our iudgment of fayth could not be conceiued prudent holy Scripture telling vs that he who soone (h) Eccles 19 belieues is light of hart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with euidence of credibility and the obiects of fayth retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to be euidently credible and euidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Sauiour his Apostles did not euidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not beene Fayth but Science and all had been necessitated to belieue which we see fell out otherwise but they were euidently conuinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths reuealed by God 5. These euident Arguments of Credibility are in great aboundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetualy existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we haue from our next Predecessors and these from theirs vpward till we come to the Apostles our Blessed Sauiour which gradiation is known by euidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man deliuers to another And it is euident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in priuate ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction inuented by themselues as ancient Tertullian well sayth How is it likely that so many (i) Prescript â—ap 28. so great Churches should erre in one fayth Among many euents there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs haue varied But that which amongmany is found to be One is not mistaken but delieuered Dare then any body say that they erred who deliuered it With this neuer interrupted existence of the Church are ioyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories ouer so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought vp to the Apostles themselues she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the diuine Certainty which they receiued from our Blessed Sauiour himselfe reuealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receiue it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praesc c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by
meanes of holy Tradition we cannot conioyne the present Church doctrine with the Church and doctrine of the Apostles but must inuent some new meanes and arguments sufficient of themselues to find out and proue a true Church and fayth independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition as is truly obserued by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that (l) Praesc 5.21 there is no meanes to proue what the Apostles preached but by the same Churches which they founded 6. Thus then we are to proceed By euidēce of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath alwayes been a neuer interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles tyme belieuing professing and practising such and such doctrines By euident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sanctity Vnity c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles and our Blesseed Sauiour himselfe confirmed their doctrine we are assured that what the sayd neuer interrupted Church proposeth doth deserue to be accepted aknowledged as a diuine truth By euidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrines as diuine truths that is as reuealed and testifyed by Almighty God By this diuine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we belieue and so the last period ground motiue and formall obiect of our Fayth is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity which neyther can deceyue nor be deceiued 7. By this orderly deduction our Faith commeth to be endued with these qualities which we said were requisite thereto namely Certainly Obscurity and Pruderce Certaimy proceeds from the infallible Testimony of God propounded conueied to our vnderstanding by such a meane as is infallible in it selfe and to vs is euidently knowne that it proposeth this point or that and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them which meanes we haue proued to be only the visible Church of Christ Obscurity from the māner in which God speakes to Mankind which ordinarily is such that it doth not manifestly shew the person who speakes nor the truth of the thing spoken Prudence is not wanting because our fayth is accompanied with so many arguments of Credibility that euery wel disposed Vnderstanding may ought to iudge that the doctrines so cōfirmed deserue to be belieued as proceeding from Authority 8. And thus from what hath been said we may easily gather the particular nature or definition of Fayth For it is a voluntary or free infallible obscure assent to some truth because it is testifyed by God is sufficiently propounded to vs for such which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible Church of Christ I say Sufficiently proposed by the Church not that I purpose to dispute whether the proposall of the Church enter into the formall Obiect or motiue of Fayth or whether an error be any heresy formally and precisely because it is against the proposition of the Church as if such proposall were the formall Obiect of fayth which D. Potter to no purpose at all labours so very hard to disproue But I only affirme that when the Church propoūds any Truth as reuealed by God we are assured that it is such indeed so it instantly growes to be a fit Obiect for Christian fayth which onclines and enables vs to belieue whatsoeuer is duely presented as a thing reuealed by Almighty God And in the same manner we are sure that whosoeuer opposeth any doctrine proposed by the Church doth thereby contradict a truth which is testified by God As when any lawfull Superiour notifies his will by the meanes and as it were proposall of some faithfull messenger the subiect of such a Superiour in performing or neglecting what is deliuered by the messenger is said to obey or disobey his owne lawfull Superiour And therfore because the testimony of God is notified by the Church we may and we do most truly say that not to belieue what the Church proposeth is to deny God's holy word or testimony signified to vs by the Church according to that saying of S. Irenaeus We need not goe (m) Lib. 3. cont heres cap. 4. to any other to seeke the truth which we may easily receiue from the Church 9. From this definition of fayth we may also know what Heresy is by taking the contrary termes as Heresy is contrary to Fayth and saying Heresy is a voluntary error against that which God hath reucaled and the Church hath proposed for such Neither doth it import whether the error concerne points in themselues great or small fundamentall or not fundamentall For more being required to an act of Vertue then of Vice if any truth though neuer so small may be belieued by Fayth assoone as we know it to be testified by diuine rouelation much more will it be a formall Heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propoūded as a thing witnessed by God 10. This diuine Fayth is diuided into Actuall and Habituall Actuall fayth or fayth actuated is when we are in act of consideration and beliefe of some mystery of Fayth for example that our Sauiour Christ is true God and Man c. Habituall fayth is that from which we are denominated Faithfull or Belieuers as by actuall fayth they are stiled Belieuing This Habit of fayth is a Quality enabling vs most firmely to belieue Obiects aboue human discourse and it remaineth permanently in our Soule euen when we are sleeping or not thinking of any Mystery of Fayth This is the first among the three Theologicall Vertues For Charity vnites vs to God as he is infinitely Good in himselfe Hope ties vs to him as he is vnspeakably Good to vs. Fayth ioynes vs to him as he is the Supreme immoueable Verity Charity relies on his Goodnes Hope on his Power Fayth on his diuine Wisedome From hence it followeth that Fayth being one of the Vertues which Deuines terme Infused that is which cannot be acquired by human wit or industry but are in their Nature Essence supernaturall it hath this property that it is not destroied by little and little contrarily to the Habits called acquisiti that is gotten by human endeuour which as they are successiuely produced so also are they lost successiuely or by little and little but it must either be conserued entire or wholy destroied And since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary it must be totally ouerthrowne and as it were demolished and razed by euery such act Wherfore as Charity or the Loue of God is expelled from our soule by any one act of Hatred or any other mortall sinne against his diuine Maiesty and as Hope is destroied by any one act of voluntary Desperation so Fayth must perish by any one act of Heresy because euery such act is directly and formally opposite therunto I know that some sinnes which as Deuines speake are ex genere suo in in their kind grieuous and mortall may be much lessened and fall to be
be saued whether their differeÌ„ces be great or smal 20. I haue told you already that the Author of the Moderate Examination c. is no Catholique That other Treatise entituled Syllabus aliquot Synodorum c. I haue not seen but if the Author pretend as you say that both Hugenots and Catholiques may be saued he can be no Catholique 21. You would faine auoide the note of Heretiques which is to be named by Moderne names deriued for the most part from their first Sect-Maisters You renounce the names of Lutherans Zwinglians or Caluinists and to that purpose you make halfe a Sermon But words will not serue your turne For they are no iniurious Nick-names as you say but names imposed by meere necessity to distinguish you from those from whom you really differ and to expresse the variety of your late Reformation If we speake of Christians or Catholiques without some addition no man will dreame of you but will thinke of vs who had that Name before Luther appeared and therefore it cannot expresse the latter Reformation If you wil be called the Reformed Church still the doubt remaynes whether you meane those who follow Luther or Caluin or Zwinglius c. Neyther will the Reformed Church if she be in her wits make her selfe lyable to all errors of Lutherans Caluinists Anabaptists Puritans c. And in this your prime man D. Field is more ingenious while he acknowledgeth a necessity of the name of Lutherans in these words Neyther was it possible (q) Of the Church lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 59. that so great an alteration should be effected and not carry some remembrance of them by whome it was procured And Whitaker sayth For distinctions sake we are inforced to vse the (r) In his answer to Reynolds Preface pag. 44. name of Protestants And Grauerus giueth a reason why those of the same Sect with him be called Lutherans saying The only reason (s) In his Absurda AbsurdoruÌ„ c. in Praefat. of it is that we may be distinguished froÌ„ Caluinists Papists from whom we cannot be distinguished by the generall name eyther of ChristiaÌ„s or of Orthed oxe or of Catholiques And Hospinianus likewise sayth I abhorre the Schismaticall names (t) In his Prologomena of Lutherans Zwinglians and Caluinist marke the Shismaticall names yet for distinction sake I will vse these names in this History The vulgar Obiection which you bring that amongst vs also there are Franciscans DominicaÌ„s Scotistes Loyalists c. is pertinent only to coÌ„uince you of manifest Nouelty For those Names are not imposed to signify difference in fayth as the Names of Lutherans Caluinists are but eyther diuers Institutes of Religion as Dominicans Franciscans c. or els diuersity of opinions concerning some points not defined by the Church as Thomists Scotists c. And for as much as these Names be argumeÌ„ts of new and particular Institutes and are deriued from particular men they likewise proue that the names of Lutherans Caluinists c. being giuen vpoÌ„ diuersity in fayth must argue a new beginning a new Sect and Sect-Maisters concerning Fayth D. Field is full to our purpose saying We must obserue that they who professe the fayth of Christ (u) Vbi sup pag. 58. haue been somtymes in these latter ages of the Church called after the speciall names of such men as were the Authours Beginners and Deuisers of such courses of Monasticall Profession as they made choyce to follow as Benedictins and such like And in his other words following he answers your obiection of the Scotists and Thomists affirming their differences to haue been in the Controuersies of Religion not yet determined by consent of the Vniuersall Church What can be more cleere that our differences concerne not matters of Fayth and that the names which you mention of FraÌ„ciscans Dominicans c. signify a Meanes of that for which they are imposed and which they are appointed to signify and therfore proue that the names of Lutherans c. must signify a Nouclty in fayth 22. But you say that the iarres and diuisions betweene (w) pag. 87. the Lntherans and Caluinists doe little concerne the Church of England which followeth none but Christ. And doe not Lutherans and Caluinists pretend to follow Christ as well as you Who shall be Iudge among you But you may easily be well assured that as long as you follow him by contrary wayes you can neuer come where he is And yet indeed doe these â—arres little concerne the Church of England Haue you in your Church none of those who are commonly called Lutherans Zwinglians Caluinists Puritans c. Doth it not behooue you to consider whether your Congregation can be One true Church of Christ while you are in Communion with so many disagreeing Sects Doth it little concerne you whether your first Reformers Lutherans Caluinists Zwinglians Puritanes be Heretiques or no How can it be but that the diuisions of Lutherans and Caluinists must concerne the Church of England For your Church cannot agree with them all if you side with one part you must iarre with the other Or if you agree with none of them you disagree with all so make a greater diuision 23. And therfore being really distrustfull of this Answere you come at length to your maine refuge namely that their dissentions (x) Pag. 87. are neither many nor so materiall as to shake or touch the foundation But till you can once tell vs what points will shake the foundation you cannot be sure whether their dissentions be not such You say their (y) Pag. 90. difference about Consubstantiation and Vbiquity is not fundamentall because both agree that Christ is really and truly exhibited to ech faithfull Communicant and that in his whole Person he is euery where In this manner you may reconcile all heresies and say the Arians or Nestorians belieued Christ to be truly God that is by reall and true affection of Charity as many among you say Christ is really in the Sacrament that is by a reall figure or by a reall act of fayth as the Nestorians said of a reall act of Charity That euen according to them who deny the Trinity there is truly a Father Sonne and holy Ghost as in God there is truly Power Vnderstanding and Will but whether those Persons be really distinct or no that is as you say of Consubstantiation and Vbiquity a nicecity inscrutable to the wit of man and so a man may goe discoursing of all other Heresies which haue been condemned by the Church Is there not a maine difference of receiuing our Sauiours body in reall substance and in figure alone Or betwixt the immensity of our Sauiours Deity and the Vbiquity of his Humanity which destroies the Mysteries of his Natiuity Ascension c for who can ascend to the place where he is already You specify only the said difference betwixt Lutherans and Caluinists whereas you know there are many more
say to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of fayth For if he doe his fayth for point of beliefe is sufficient for saluation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether he hold all fundamentall points or no For til you tel me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretikes But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of fayth Are you sure of that not sure I hould it very probable (y) pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or euen wagers This yields a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contayne all points necessary to be belieued whether they rest in the vnderstanding or else do further extend to practise No. It was cōposed to deliuer Credenda not Agenda to vs Fayth not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to saluation Still you chalke out new pathes for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particuler be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answere to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertaine (z) pag. 211.213.214 to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly belieued by euery Christian that will be saued They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make vp our Fayth in Christ that is that common fayth which is alike precious in all being one the same in the highest Apostle the meanest belieuer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God and the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I vnderstand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell vs what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet vnlesse you do this your Doctrine serues onely either to make men despaire or els to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and who giue one certaine Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Fayth in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with saluation And seing your selfe acknowledges that these men do not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to loyne with them for the securing of my soule and the auoyding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who vnderstand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which heer I haue made are either your owne direct Assertions or euident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let vs answere some few Obiections of D. Potters against that which we haue said before to auoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he sayth The Creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary Doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21. This answere makes for vs. For by giuing a reason why it was needles that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles iudged it needles to expresse all necessary points of fayth in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Bookes in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had neuer been written and which is more the Creed euen in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles conteined in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tels vs that the Creed (b) pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary doctrines as are deliuered in Scripture or collected out of it and therfore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are deliuered in Scripture therfore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliuer the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other vnlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctours cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told vs it was needles that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth therby sufficiently auow the diuine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would aske him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines deliuered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needles to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of diuine authority but we are also bound vnder paine of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Bookes not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answere grants as much as we desire which is that all points of fayth are not contained in the Apostles Creed euen as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no wayes contained in the Apostles Creed and therfore containe an Addition not an Explanation therof 23. But how can it be necessary sayth D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the (c) pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their tymes I answere You trifle not distinguish betweene the Apostles beliefe and that abridgement of some Articles of fayth which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you begg the question by supposing that the Apostles belieued no more then is contained in their Creed which euery vnlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons 24. Your pretended proofe out of the Acts that the Apostles reuealed to the Church the whole Counsell of God keeping (d) Act. 20.27
forget that Charity Mistaken among other instances alledges this to proue that all points of fayth are not contained in the Creed to which you giue no answere at all but only tell vs what your owne opinion is And that it may appeare how you comply with your promise not to omit without Answere any one thing of moment heare what Charity Mistaken sayth to this purpose in these words S. Peter sayth that S. Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to be vnderstood and which the vnlearned and vnstable did peruert to their owne destructions S. Austen declares vpon this place that the places misvnderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceiued to be by fayth alone And of purpose to countermine that error he sayth that S. Iames wrote his Epistle and proued therin that good works were absolutely necessary to the act of Iustification Heereupon we may obserue two things the one that an error in this point alone is by the iudgment of S. Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it and the other that the Apostles Creed which speakes no one word therof is no good rule to let vs know all the fundamentall points of fayth Did not all this discourse deserue some answere from one who professes to omit nothing 7. But now you come to a new busines and say If the (f) Pag. 239. Romane Church be not guilty of Manicheisme why is single life called Chastity and commended as an eminent degree of sanctimony As if forsooth Marriage must be ill because a single lyfe is better Why doe you not lay the same aspersion vpon our Sauiour Christ who proposed Chastity as one of the Euangelicall Councells vpon S. Paul who sayth that (h) 1. Cor. 7. he who doth not marry melius facit doth better vpon the Ancient Fathers who so highly extoll a single life You cannot be ignorant but that among diuers degrees of Chastity Catholique Deuines do also place Coniugall Chastity which they hold to be good and meritorious though yet inferiour to the other 8. You goe on and aske why Marriage is sayd to be incompatible with (i) Innocent Papa dist 82. can Proposuisti holines or with (k) Idem Gods fauour nay counted a (l) Bell. de Clericis cap. 19. §. I am verò pollution worse then (m) Coster Enchirid c. de Caelib whoredome With better reason we may say why doe you peruert and corrupt Authours agaynst your owne conscience Innocentius whome you cite sayth only It is not lawfull that they should be admitted to sacred functions that is holy Orders who liue with their wiues because it is written Be holy because I am holy sayth our Lord. Is this to say absolutely that Marriage is incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that holines which by the Churches Ordination is required in Priests S. Paul sayth that an vnmaried woman (n) I. Cor. 7. and a Virgin thinkes of things belonging to God that she may be holy in body and soule Will you hence inferre that the Apostle affirmes Marriage to be incompatible with holines because it is incompatible with that peculiar holines which Virginity is apt to breed Those words Be holy because I am holy are taken out of Leuit. chap. 11. vers 44. where the Iewes are forbidden to touch certaine beasts and yet I hope you will not accuse God of Manicheisme as if the eating of such beasts were incompatible with holines The other words alledged by Innocentius Those who are in flesh cannot please God are vnderstood as I said of that particular holines and pleasing of God which is required in those that take holy Orders To proue that Bellarmine accounts Marriage a pollution you alleage out of him these words (o) De Clericis cap. 19. §. Iamverò Not only the Marriage of Priests which is sacriledge not marriage but euē the Marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certaine pollution turpitude But why doe you take pleasure in alledging Authours against their owne meaning Bellarmine to proue how cōgruous conueniēt it is that Priests should lead a single lyfe after many Authorities of Scriptures Councels Fathers proues it also by reason it selfe in regard that Marriage is a great impediment to Ecclesiasticall functions and beginning with the action of sacrificing he sayth Matrimony as Saint Hierome saith lib. 1. in Iouinian hinders the office of sacrificing because there is required most great purity and sanctity therein as S. Chrysostome in his sixt Booke of Priesthood doth declare and it cannot be denyed but that in the act of Marriage there is mingled a certaine impurity and pollution not which is sinne but which arose from sinne For though Caluin exclayme against Pope Siricius who is so ancient that he sate an 385. because he called the Marriage of Priests Pollution yet that not only the Marriage of Priests which is not marriage but sacriledge but also the Martrimony of holy persons is not exercised without a certayne pollution and turpitude appeares by the rebellion of nature and the shamefastnes of men in that act who alwayes seeke to be hidden as S. Augustine hath obserued lib. 14. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 17. Thus Bellarmine and indeed S. Augustine in the next Chap. expresly speakes de pudore Concubitus non solum vulgari sed etiam coniugali And now what but malice can reprehend any one tittle in this doctrine of Bellarmine or rather in the doctrine of the Fathers by him cited which containes against you Sacrifice single life of Priests Moreouer you falsify both Innocētius and Bellarmine who speake not of Marriage in it selfe of which you make them speake in your Text but of the act thereof and therfore Innocentius sayth Qui exercent cum vxore carnale consortium And Bellarmine sayth Non exercetur sine pollutione quadam c. Which is not euen so much as to say the act it selfe is pollution but only Non exercetur sine pollutione c. and this also not absolutely but with a limitation non sine pollutione quadam c. For Matrimony of it selfe may stand with most perfect Chastity yea with Virginity as appeareth in the most Immaculate Mother of God And at this day a married man may be made Priest if his wife consent and other Conditions prescribed in the holy Canons be obserued And wheras you say It seemes by S. Augustine they the Manichees did not forbid meates or marriage as absolutely impure or to all only their choyce Elect ones must obstaine the other vulgar their Auditors were lefte at their liberty This obiection taken out of Peter Martyr is answered by Bellarmine in the Chapter next to that which you cited that S. Augustine lib. 30. contra Faustum cap. 6. writes that the Manichees did absolutly forbid Marriage because though they did permit it to their Auditors yet it was only for that they could not do otherwise