advice of humility it being time enough for them to know and reflect that S. Peter was their Head by that expresse future declaration of our Saviour Joan 21. 38. Thirdly You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest because the Scripture sayth God hath appointed first Apostles secondly Prophets but sayth not God hath appointed First Peter then the rest of the Apostles which to speake truth is a childish reason it being cleare that the Scripture in that place doth not compare the Apostles among themselves but with other degrees in the Church as Prophets Doctours c. Otherwise you might proue that one Magistrate can not be subordinate and subject to another if one for example should say the commonwealth consists of Magistrates and people because forsooth in that division you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate aboue another 39 Fourthly you say S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles and if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles it was a wonder that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself as that mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour But I beseech you can you belieue that S. Paul would say of himself that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles absolutely and in all things He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners and laments that he had bene a persecutor of Christians and will you needs vnderstand him to say that in such respects he was not inferiour to the other Apostles who were innocent of those things He was an Apostle as the others were and that is all you can vnderstand by his words and all that makes just nothing to the purpose But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour No more doth he giue any title to S. James though he were Bishop of Hierusalem which surely deserves some honour if the simplicity of those blessed tymes had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles Yourself say heere S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not haue supreme Authority over them and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first in order and honour how then will your answer your owne objection that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him without any title of honour seing particular honour was due to him even by our Saviours command For from what other cause could it proceede But shall I disclose to you a mystery on which it seemes you do not reflect Our Saviour whose words are operatiue and deeds by calling S. Peter Cephas or a Rock had also made him such and saied Tues Petrus Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church so that to name Peter is to call him the Foundation and head of the Church and all Christians and with what greater title of honour could any body mention any Creature we may therefore say of S. Peter as S. Ambrose saieth of the title of Martyr De Uirginibus Lib. 1. Quot homines tot praecones qui Martyrem praedidicant dum loquuntnr To name one a martyr is a title of honour and so it is to name Peter for the foresaied Reason 40. You conclude Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more fooleries say I not probabilities that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine Right Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church vniversall Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be the foundation of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 41. Answer If you suppose as for the present you doe that S. Peter by our Saviours institution and consequently by divine right was Head of the Apostles you should not say what incongruity is there but what incongruity is there not if we say that the Bishop of Rome might succeed S. Peter only in the Government of that particular Church For what can be more incongruous and foolish than to imagine that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles and the whole Church only for his life time when there was no need and as we may saie litle vse thereof seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians and Power to preach the Gospell through the whole world and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter must haue relation to future Ages after the death of the Apostles and if it must still reside in some in whom can you imagine it to be seated except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter to remaine in his Successors appeares by his words which I haue pondered aboue as also because he speakes of the Sea or Chaire of Rome as of the Rule whereby to judg of heresies and Schismes not only for the tyme of S. Peter but for ever and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only and saith Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c and so goes on till his owne ayme And I would gladly know by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church was so particular and personall to him that it ceased with his person Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith with your congruities or incongruities With your Socinian topicall humane vaine discourses What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S Peter was living I will not examine heere whether or in what manner Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before S. Peters death wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth they were not Romanae sedis episcopi but only Coadjutores I beseech you remember what you saied N. 98. and 99. interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus that in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop and certainly it is no consequence The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome and supplying
over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinks is as strang as that a King of England for twenty fine yeares should do no Act of Regality nor receiue any one acknowledgment of it 35. Answer 1. I would ask how you can assure vs that S. Peter exercised no one act of authority over any one of the Apostles vnless first you suppose not only that all points of Faith but also all matters of fact are registred in Scripture which I hope you will not say S. Luke in the Acts having set downe but a few things and of fewe 2. If you belieue Scripture you cannot doubt but that in divers occasions S. Peter exercised Actions declaring him to haue an ordinary Charg and Power proper to him It was hee who spoke first in the Apostles Councell in Hierusalem who proposed the Election of S. Matthias in warning Christians that in the writings of S. Paul there were things difficult to be vnderstood which in my opinyon deserves to be noted declaring that the charg of the whole Church was committed to him even in things relating to other Apostles who is still named in the first place and named in such manner as the rest are named as belonging to him or of his family which appeares Mark 1. Luc 8. 9. Act 2. 5. It was Hee who was wont to speak for the rest and so S. Cyrill vpon those words Joan 6. Domine ad quem ibimus saieth Per vnum qui praeerat omnes respondent But of the authority and prerogatives of S. Peter Bellarmine writes at large de Rom Pontifice Lib 1. Cap 17.18.19.20.21.22 to whom I referr the Reader 3. The Apostles being dead or dispersed no wonder if S. Peter either had no occasion of exercising Iurisdiction over them or at least there was not occasion of writing it for posterity Besides all the Apostles having jurisdictiō over the whole world which in them was extraordinary but ordinary in S. Peter and being particularly assisted by the Holy Ghost for the due performance of their office no wonder if S. Peter had no occasion of exercising his Power in order to them who wanted neither Power nor knowledg nor will to correspond to the vocation of an Apostle which consideration confutes ād retorts your similitude of a King who certainly would not be solicitous to exercise any act of regality over those who had as great Power as hee himself ād who he was assured would make the best vse of their Power if we imagine any such case in a Kingdom as de facto it was true in the Apostles of whom S. Cyprian saieth De Vnitate Ecclesiae Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego tibi dico inquit quia tu es Petrus super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferorum non vincent eam Et tibi dabo claves regnicoelorum quae ligaveris super terram erunt ligata in coelis quaecumque solveris super terram erunt soluta in coelis Et iterum eidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit Pasce Oves meas Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat dicat Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos accipite Spiritum Sanctum Si cui remiseritis peccata remittentur illi Si cui retinueritis tenebuntur tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret vnam cathedram constituit vnitatis ejusdem originē ab vno incipientē sua authoritate disposuit Hoc erant vtique caeteti Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia cathedra vna monstretur Behold how the Apostles had jurisdiction over the whole world though in a different manner from that according to which it was conferred vpon S. Peter to descend to his Successours 36. Secondly You object As strang it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly and that the Apostles should be so ignorant that S. Peter was Head of the rest as to question which of them should be the greatest after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue wherof S. Peter is pretended to haue been made their Head yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentils exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them Answer It is more strange that you should make this objection who teach that the Apostles even after the receiving of the Holy Ghost having had an expresse revelation and commād from our Saviour were doubtfull whether they ought to preach to the Gentills For if they might erre in Faith and practice notwithstanding so direct a revelation and precept how can you wonder that before the receiving of the Holy Ghost they might contend among themselves which of them were the greater although our Saviour had promised to build his Church vpon S. Perer and why do you not say against yourself it is strang that you so many ages after should know the Apostles did erre in that matter Besides Bellarmine de Romano Pontifice Lib 1. cap 28. demonstrates both by testimonyes of Fathers and Scriptures that S. Peter was not with the other Apostles in that contention of theirs which of them was the greater and so cannot be sayd to haue been ignorant of his owne authority which our Saviour had promised Matth 16. and actually conferred Joan 21. Yea perhaps the Apostles did propose to themselves some temporall kinde of glory or kingdome as the mother of S. James and S. John did when she petitioned our Saviour that one of her sonnes might sit at the right hand the other at the left in his Kingdome and did not thinke of being Head of the spirituall Kingdome of Christs Militant Church According to which consideration it is no wonder If our Saviour should not bring them out of their errour by telling them S. Peter was the man seing indeed he was no such man in order to a temporall Kingdome but rather confirmed it by saying the Kings of the Gentils exercise authority over them but it should not be soe among them Which sacred advice had been also good and necessary though their contention had been about their preeminence in the Church which to seeke ambitiously is evill though the thing to which they pretend be good And seing our Saviour was afterward to commit the charge of the whole Church to S. Peter in expresse termes by a triple injunction of Pasce oves meas Feed my sheep Joan 21. his divine wisdome thought fit Matth 18. to giue them that holy
N. 4. he endeauours to proue that Faith cannot be absolutely certaine because if it were so any least doubting would destroy it which shewes that doubting may well consist with his kind of probable faith which is that very absurdity which we inferrd as impious against true Religion of which we must resolue neuer to doubt though per jmpossible an Apostle or Angel should moue vs therto as we haue heard out of S. Paule and yet the Authority of an Apostle or perswasion of an Angell should in all reason be preferrd before Faith if it be only probable 24. This inconstancy in Religion appeares further by what he confesses of himselfe Pag. 389. N. 7. where speaking of a command of obedience to the Roman Church he hath these words sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeauour to find it true and am still willing to doe so but the more I seeke the further I am from findinge c. Behold how after so long tyme so much deliberation so many changes of Religion euen after the writing of his Booke he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed Also P. 184. N. 90. he sayth Shew vs any way and do not say but proue it to haue come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to vs and we are ready to followit Neither do we expect Demonstration herof but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary Agreable to this is his professing Preface N. 2. that he had a trauellers indifferency most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it And N. 5. he professes that his constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heauen which for the present seemed to him the most probable A poore comfort and miserable faith only probable and of no longer continuance than for the tyme present I willingly omitt that his deeds were agreeable to his words changing first from Protestants to Catholike then from Catholike to Protestant and about againe to Catholike till at last he became neyther Precisian nor Subscriber to the 39. Articles nor confessed Socinian nor any thing vnless that mhich S. Bernard sayth of Abailardus Ep 193. Homo sibi dissimilis est totus ambiguus He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe wholy compounded of doubts I willingly leaue out his middle words Intus Herodes for is Ioannes inwatdly a Herode outwardly a Iohn If the Apostles be to be belieued only in that which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth as he teaches Pag. 144. N. 31. surely this man and his fellow Socinians ought not to be belieued in any thing seing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible and but probable they neither are nor can be constant in any poynt they deliuer and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees Matt 23.2 whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you doe but according to their works doe not but doe neither what they shall say nor according to their works And heere I beseech and euen begg of the Reader if he haue any care to saue his soule that he will consider how far the faith of this man and his Associates is from true Christian Faith of which we haue heard S. Paule saying Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he an Anathema 25. But this is not all that strongly offers it selfe in this poynt For not only his Faith cannot affoard any rest or satisfaction wherby a man may cease from further inquiry but leaues him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion and seeking whether he can fynd some more probable and better grounded This sequele seems cleare Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to saluation charity towards ones self obliges euery man to seeke the safer way and the most certaine Religion And seeing he is not certaine that the Religion or way to Heauen which for the present seemes to him most probable as we haue heard him speake is indeed the right way what remaynes but that men are obliged to be continually busied and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to saluation This my inference seemes to be acknowledged by him For beside what hath beene already cited he sayes of himselfe P. 278. N. 61. If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of diuine matters being prepard in mynd to fellow God and God only which way sceuer he shall lead me if I did not hope that I eyther doe or endeauour to dâ—e these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining saluation Loe heere little hope of saluation vnless a man be still examining to the bottome his opinions and be prepard in mynd to follow c. But in Vaine it is to seeke that rest which will neuer be found except in a Faith and Religion acknowledged to be absolutely certaine and infallible which alone can put an end to all further inquiry Finally Pag. 376. N. 57. he sayth This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely Ponder verily perswaded And were not you verily perswaded in those your changes which you acknowledg Pag. 303. N. 103. from a moderate Protestant to a Papist from a doubting Papist to a confirmed Protestant were you not I say verily perswaded that you did choose wisely Yea you expresly tell vs in the same Pag. 303. that of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist and that the day that you did so you were conuicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion that is Protestantisme was an errour By all which appeares how inconstant you were and must be in matters of Faith and Religion till you acknowledg an infallible Faith taken from an infallible liuing Guide which is Gods true Church 26. From this liberty of Belief what can follow but liberty of life Seing his belief of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion concerning things of an other world wheras worldly pleasures are in present possession and certaine If the absolute certainty wherwith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their Faith to abound hath not bene able to stop the course of mens licentiousness what can we now expect but that they who before did runne will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodyes objects of profit or delight Pag. 326. N. 4. he teaches that if faith be infallible no Christian could committ any deliberate sinne yea and must be perfect in Charity because Faith is the victorie which ouercomes the world and Charity is the effect of Faith If this be so we may say on thecontrary side that if faith be weake or only probable what victory what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it But let
containe something against scripture For example whether according to the example of our Saviour the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper or at the tyme when we are wont to supp as Protestants commonly call it the supper which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone but only by authority of the Church which practiseth the contrary And this is so great a doubt that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it and S. Austine answers that we are to follow the custome of Churches though yet in the same Epistle Cap. 7. he saith Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio c. Some were moved with a probable reason that vpon one particular day in the yeare on which our Lord gaue the supper the Body and Bloud of our Lord might be offered ād receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration The same I say of washing the feete and other circumstances which abstracting from the practise of the Church you can haue no certainty but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all And in particular for washing of feet our Saviour Joan. 13. V. 8. said to S. Peter If I wash thee not thou shalt haue no part with me And V. 14. you also ought to wash one anothers feet Mark the word ought which may seeme to sound a commād and was spoken not only to S. Peter but to all the rest Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise Declaration and infallibility we must say that there is a command to wash feete either before we receyve the Eucharist or els absolutely without relation to that Sacrament because our Saviour sayd absolutely you ought to wash one an others feet Morover How will you assure vs that bread for the Matter of Consecration must not of necessity be vnleavened and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme Or if you may cōsecrate in any kind of wine why not in any kind of bread Which are things belonging not only to decency or circumstance but also to the substance of the Sacrament and though they belonged only to circumstance yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture the doing or omission of thē were damnable therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church cānot erre Neither cā he be thought to say these things are not vnlawfull but indifferent therfor it is madness to dispute against them if they be practised by the whole church but contrarily he must say the whole church practises them therfore they are lawfull ād it is madness to dispute against them which were not so if the whole church might erre neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent as you ibid Pag. 151. N. 42. deny not but it might be esteemēd pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstāces of Gods worship And yet S. Austine in that Epistle Cap. 2. having first mentioned things contayned in scripture adds these words But those things which we keep not as written but by tradition if they be observed through the whole world are vnderstood to be kept as recōmended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves or by generall Councells whose authority is most wholsome in the Church and having given examples of things which are differētly observed in different places and countryes saith this kind of things is freely observed neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come ād afterward he disallowes their proceeding who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture nor by tradition of the vniversall church Therfor according to S. Austine if ōce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church we may ād ought to defend it without further dispute ād to impugne ād reject whatsoever practise or doctrine of any particular church or countrey though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble which we could not doe without pride ād folly vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise or deliver any thing against faith ād therfor he saith Cap. 4. that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country will not speake out of scripture neither will he take his proofes frō the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture and the voice of the vniversall church either of which whosoever can alledg he may confidently stand for what they deliver And for this cause cap. 5. he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote was to consider whether that of which there was Question be contayned in scripture or be vnanimously practised by the whole church or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes of which third kind he saith let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself But of the two first kinds he speakes as I noted aboue in another manner that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise and that to dispute against any such thing is most insolent madness What could haue bene spoken more cleare to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church because we judg aforehand that what she practises is lawfull but because we learne by her practise that it is lawfull and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit that is ought to be so done and so we must learne of her both the practise and the lawfulness therof And consequently whatsoever is against scripture or the practise of the vniversall Church must not be ranked among the third kind of things of which he sayd none of those things are against Faith or Manners and contrarily whatsoever is of the two first kinds that is against scripture or the vniversall Church must be esteemed to be of a different nature and contrary to Faith or Manners and therfor saith he velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat vel institui quod non fiebat Either that must be mended which was done amisse or that is to be ordayned which was omitted And therfor your saying here that it is not to be accounted pride or folly to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship is directly against S Austine and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses nor of Heresy even by this most pernicious Doctrine that the vniversall Church may erre 210. From these places of S. Austine and what we haue sayd
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
his Apostles therfor if these people were thē obliged to belieue the cōtēts of scripture christiās now are for the same reasō obliged to belieue scripture it self 19. Fiftly Not vnlike to this Reason is that which I tooke from your owne words Pag 115. N. 156. where you teach that nothing can chalenge our belief but what hath descended to vs by originall and vniversall Tradition and that scripture alone is such therfor scripture doth chaleng our belief and is an object of Christian Faith 20 From these two last Arguments I deduce that this Truth Sctipture is the word of God is an object to be believed by Faith though we should suppose that it were proposed to one whom God would not oblige to know the particular Mysteryes contained therin because independently of any such obligation it is sufficiētly proposed as a thing revealed by God and consequently as an Article of Faith abstracting from any relation to a further end Which consideration overthrowes the ground of your assertion that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it and therfore itself is not an object of Faith 21. Sixtly If we be not obliged to belieue the scripture Protestants are not bound to belieue the contents therof as I haue often sayd vpon severall occasions because they haue no notice of the contents but by scripture it self Neither can you answer that we are obliged to belieue scripture as a meanes to lead vs to the verityes contayned in it For this answer supposes that I haue some notice and belief of being obliged to belieue the matter of scripture before I belieue the scripture wheras Protestants must say the direct contrary to wit that all their belief or any apprehension of the particular Truth of scripture proceeds from and is grounded in scripture which therfor must be believed before we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths So that if we haue no antecedent obligation to belieue scripture we cannot possibly in the grounds of Protestants be obliged to belieue the contents therof Besides this Answer overthrowes your owne Assertion and grants that we are obliged to belieue the scripture at least as a meanes de facto necessary to attayne the belief of the contents therof it being cleare that if I be obliged to attayne an End I am necessarily obliged to vse the Meanes which is necessary to attaine that End and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you but strongly proves that you haue a strict obligation to belieue scripture since you are obliged to compasse that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it containes Neither is our Question whether scripture be a materiall Object believed for itself alone as I sayd aboue but whether it be an Object which I am obliged to belieue which this very Answer is forced to grant This discourse is clearly confirmed by your words Pag. 86. N. 93. It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of cōtinuing the knowledg of thē heing perished Much more you must say it is apparēt it had not bene Gods will that the contēts of scripture should be knowne if we need not knowe yea if we may reject the only meanes of begetting or continuing the knowledg of them which you in this very particular acknowledg to be scripture and thence you inferr that God could not but preserue it from any vndiscernable corruption 22. Seventhly They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith because the Apostles and Apostolicall men did preach them believed not only the Mysteryes or Matters which they preached but also the Authority of those Preachers as of persons worthy of credit so that it was a materiall object of Faith that the Apostles spoke in the name of God and inspired by him yea the matters proposed were believed for the Authority of the proposers which therfor must be believed at least as much as the things believed yourself saying Pag 377. N. 59. VVe must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof◠Therfor as their words so their writings must be believed as an object of faith at least as much as the truths which they spoke or wrote neither doth speaking or writing make any difference at all in this point And as you say their writings were referred to the belief of the things which they wrote or were taken as Meanes for that End so their speaking or preaching was ordained to beget a belief of the things which they spoke and so there is a most exact parity neither cā you exclude the authority of scripture from being a materiall Object of Faith but you must likewise say that mē were not bound to belieue the Authority of the Apostles when they preached and consequently that they were not obliged to belieue the Truths which they preached and which they could belieue only in vertue of the belief of such an authority And further although it were supposed that some one or more believed the Articles of Christian Faith by an extraordinary Motion and light of the Holy Ghost without the Preaching or writing of the Apostles and lived according to their belief and were saved In that case although those men could not be obliged to belieue the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a meanes for attaining the belief of those Articles which they believed already yet they would remayne obliged to belieue the authority of the Apostles if at any tyme it came to be sufficiētly propounded and proved by miracles or other argumēts of credibility and could no more reject it thē they could disbelieue the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed Therfor the authority of the Apostles and the infallibility of their preaching ād writing is sufficient to terminate an act of faith that is to be a materiall object therof even of it self or takē alone because so taken it may be proved to be revealed by God which is the formall motiue for which we belieue all the materiall object of faith Since therfor you teach as I haue often put you in mynd that scripture had bene confirmed by Miracles you cānot deny it to be a materiall object of Faith And this argument is stronger against you thē the case I put doth declare wherin it was supposed that the articles of our faith were knowne by some other meanes then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles wheras de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture which therfor you are obliged to belieue vpō a double title or account that is both as it is credible in itself by divine argumēts abstracting frō any further end ād also as a meanes to attaine the sayd end of believing the articles therin contayned 23. Eightly You confess
delivered by word or writing and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such which sufficiency of proposition is required in all articles of Faith fundamentall or not fundamentall before one can be obliged to belieue them 27 Since then according to your Doctrine we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God yea and may reject it It remaines true then as I sayd in the last Chapter Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith although we should falsly suppose that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed For what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith to read any Point in that Booke which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue Let vs now come to another errour of yours 28. Your second errour I find Pag. 144. N. 31. where you write thus If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they dâ—livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstaÌ„ding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both h o and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes And Pag. 145. N. 33. you say the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures 29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine and receyved as Divine Truth 1. It must be delivered constantly 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles and these conditions you require for every part therof For you say the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part and then you add expressly this limitation I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine Divine Truth and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills did frame that opinyon out of some apprehended Revelation for example In viam gentium ne abieritis Matth 10.5 Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not or Matth 15.24 I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel or some other and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth yet they were deceyved in that Poynt because it wanted the other conditions of constancy and Attestation of Divine Miracles and consequently your doctrine must be that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost might faile in some of them and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion 30. If this be so what certainty can we now haue that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation Ephes 2.20 haue not erred in writing as then they erred in speaking And in particular whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which Pag 137. N. 21. You cite out of S. Matth 29.19 Goe and teach all Nations And so at this present we cannot be certaine whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching or in their second of preaching the Gospell to Gentils If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost they could erre in neither without it in both and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted and how can you be certaine that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre You grant Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing Seing therfor you teach that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing which God required them to belieue and commanded them to practise according to your owne saying we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing What the Apostles spoke or preached they might haue written it is your owne saying Pag 54. N. 7. Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written neither had it bene more or less true or false by being committed to writing than if it had bene only spoken or preached and so if they could erre in speaking we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe some errour proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice or some other cause as you speake Pag 137. N. 21. This I may confirme by what you say to Ch Ma Pag 84.86 D. Fields words I confess are somwhat more pressing and if he had bene infallible and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Booke In which words I note that although D. Field had bene infallible yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing for you speake of what he hath written in his Book and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible and actually to haue erred as you say they did why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings 31. If you answer that it belongs to Gods providence not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing and conveyed to posterity I reply by this very Reason it is cleare that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers especially since you pretend that this errour of theirs is
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith But you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. Ye are the salt of the earth said our Saviour to his Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
and didst eate with them And accordingly S. Chrysostome Hom. 24. in Act. Cap. 11. saith Those who were of the circumcision not the Apostles did contend They were offended saith the scripture not a litle and marke vpon what pretense They sayd not why hast thou preacht But why hast thou eaten Neither did they object that of preaching for they knew that it was the gift of God According to which saying even the converted Jewes were not offended with S. Peter for preaching to but for eating with Gentils That before the conversion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians Cornel. a Lapide in Act. Cap. 10. post versum 48. affirmes and proves by divers arguments and therfor S. Peter was not ignorant that he and the other Apostles were to preach to the Gentils but he did abstaine from preaching publikly and as it were solemnly to avoide the offence of Jewes converted to Christ till by this heavenly vision he might sweetly aÌ„d effectually perswade them that such was the will of God Thus S. John Chrys Hom 22. in Act Cap 10 saith Because it was so to fall out that they would all accuse Peter as a breaker of the law which was very common with them he sayd necessarily and opportunely I haue never eaten Did he himself feare God forbid But Gods spirit did so direct him that he might haue in readynes a defense against those who would reprehend him c Not ô Lord because I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And a voyce came to him That which God hath purifyed do not thou call common This seemed to be spoken to him but indeed it was wholy directed to the Jewes for if the maister S. Peter be blamed much more they that is the Jewes for thinking that it was vnlawfull to eate with Gentils It appeares then that neither S. Peter nor the other Apostles did feare to deale and preach to the Gentils but the Holy Ghost spiritus moderabatur as S. Chrysostome speakes and ordained all for the satisfaction of others 35. But for better vnderstanding this whole matter we are to reflect on three things For we may consider first the eating of Jewes with Gentils 2. Eating meates forbidden to the Jewes 3. preaching to them Now S. Chrysostome as we haue seene observes that the Jewes were offended with S. Peter for eating with Gentils and if we consider as I may say the letter or the most immediate literall sense of the vision made to S. Peter it had respect to the Law of the Jewes to whom certaine meates were forbidden and esteemed vncleane as appeares Chap 10. V. 12. Where in were all fourfooted beasts and that creepe on the earth and foules of the aire and accordingly S. Peter sayd V. 14. I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And there is not any thing sayd directly and precisely of preaching to Gentils but at most by consequence because the Apostles could not commonly and constantly preach to them but that they should haue occasion to eate with them or els by way of signification or that vncleane meates in generall did also signify Gentils whom the Jewes esteemed as it were vncleane and irreligious persons Yet preaching and Eating are of their nature different as we may deale with an excommunicate person for his conversion though ordinarily we may not eate with him This being so you cannot affirme that the Apostles did thinke it vnlawfull to preach to the Gentils vnless you do also belieue that they judged Christians converted from Judaisme to be obliged to obserue the whole Law of the Jewes in conformity to the vision presented to S. Peter of all sorts of beasts or meates which the Jewes could not lawfully eate Will you grant this Will you ranke the Apostles with that faction of Pharisees converted to Christ which troubled the most primitiue Church by preaching that the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation even for converted Gentils S. Paul sayth If you be circumfised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal 5. N. 2. And do you thinke that the Apostles were in an errour which must draw vpon them so heauy a doome A Councell was gathered about this matter not that the Apostles could doubt therof but for satisfaction and quiet of Christians and in like manner that vision was shewed to S. Peter not for rectifying any errour of his owne about preaching to Gentils but for pacifying and setling the mynds of Jewes converted to Christianity Haue we not heard you say Pag. 101. N. 127. That it is cleare in Scripture that the observation of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary And therfor it cannot be imagined that the Apostles for whose authority we belieue the scripture could doubt therof Or if you thinke the Apostles might erre about the necessity of observing the Mosaicall Law what certainty can we haue notwithstanding the Definition of that first Councell but that still we may thinke the keeping of Moyses his Law to be necessary you see how much you did exaggerate in saying that the Apostles them selves for a tyme continued in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth is vnanswerably evident from the story of the acts of the Apostles seing this Story as you will needs vnderstand it doth either proue nothing for your purpose or more than you will grant or is true in itself and so by proving too much you come to proue nothing at all and this only remaynes true That although scripture did containe all necessary truths yet we could not belieue them for such a scripture as you offer vs which certainly could be no Rule of Faith at all 36. Your Third errour for I am willing to reduce them to as small a number as I can though in those which I haue layd togeather in gross many particulars distinct from one another are involved as for example every one of the conditions which you require for infallibility of the writings of the Apostles be so many severall errours Your third errour I say is set downe in the same Pag 144. in the next Number 32. in these words For those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelations why we should take them to be Divine Revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Therfor when S. Paul sayes 1. Epist to the Cor 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord And againe concerning Virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord but I deliver my judgment If we wâ—ll pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that Spirit by which he wrote Which moved him to write as in other places Divine Revelations which he certainly knew to be such so in this place his owne judgment touching some things which God had not particularly revealed vnto him 37. This your doctrine
it by other Meanes which is by the Magistery of other men Faith comes by hearing that is by his Church which he hath commanded vs to heare vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes or extraordinary lights motions or rapts And so this very Providence of God in permitting some scripture to be lost or questioned for a tyme proves the necessity of a Living Guide and the no-necessity or no sole-sufficiency of scripture and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide 53. But then say you How is the Church an infallible keeper of sâ—ripture which hath suffered some bookes to be lost It is easy for vs to answer that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost we are sure the Church can and will supply that defect by the assistance which God hath promised Her as your Volkelius de vera Relig L. 6. C. 19. affirmes and endeavours to prove that by scripture alone the Church may be restored though she were supposed totally to haue fayled which conceit of his though it be but a meere chimera since it appeares by experience that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to be believed yet it demonstrates that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written But this answer cannot serue Protestants who on the one side cannot be assured that in those scriptures which were lost there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith and on the other are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture consists not in this that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes but that she be so directed as no scripture or other Meanes be lost if indeed they be necessary for salvation 54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority and Canonicallness must be answered by Protestants who receyue for Canonicall some books of which once there was some doubt neither will they pretend to restore to them authority or Canonicallness which in themselves they could never loose for what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written but only we may come to know that which we did not know or to be assured of that wherof some doubted Which yet you must not so vnderstand as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes and much less that she did deny or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning theÌ„ as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles and the Church in due tyme even by occasion of such doubt or denyall declared the Truths contrary to those Heresyes to be arricles of Faith and those books of which some doubted to be Canonicall Thus Potter Pag 216. teaches that the Apâ—â—â—â—es Creed as it was further opened and explayned in some parts by occasion if emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Conseantmople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius contains all fundamentall Points of Faith And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonicall nay degrading them from the number of articles of Faith aÌ„d putting theÌ„ among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For the church did not omit to declare in due tyme and vpon fit or necessary occasioÌ„ that they were Canonicall as the ancieÌ„t Councell of Nice of whose Creed your Church of England Art 8. saieth it ought throughly to be receaved aÌ„d believed by occasioÌ„ of the daÌ„nable heresy of Arius with whom you and your SociniaÌ„s agree declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith or put among disputable problemes aÌ„y Part of true Canonicall scripture aÌ„d therfor Cha Ma sayd truly that never aÌ„y booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall was questioÌ„ed or rejected for apocriphall either by the church or any Catholique to whom such a DefinitioÌ„ was sufficiently notifyed though Heretiks will still be doing what pride aÌ„d obstinacie may suggest In the meane tyme you will find that I haue already aÌ„swered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha Ma that never any book or syllable once defined c and of which you are pleased to say certainly it is a bold assertion but extremely false aÌ„d say Hee Cha Ma were best ruâ—b his forhead hard and say c But our answer is very obvious that the booke of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of S. James and to the Heb which you mention were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall yet that did not hinder but afterward some might be ignorant or doubt of them as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter You cite S. Gregory L 9. Morall C. 13. calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but L. 19. C. 17. which you might haue learned out of Potter who P. 259. cites the same authority as I haue set it downe This I would not haue noted if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter Potter I say makes the same objection out of S. Gregory and Cha Ma Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18. answers it at large and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did These then be the words of Charity Maintayned what you alledg out of S. Gergory is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and divine scriptures but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius or Legat at
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching § 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and § 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatè by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to
vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
the Apostles and our B. Saviour were not absolutely infallible because they were built vpon another higher infallibility And I returne your owne words against you if but wise men or even men in their wits haue the ordering of the building they will make it as sure a thing that the building shall not fall from the Foundation as that the Foundation shall not faile the building if it be in their power to doe both these things with as much certainty and facility as to doe one of them And no wonder seing the stability of the Foundation is but a Meanes to the End that the Edifice which is builded vpon it be stable and every wise man hath greater regard to the End then to the Meanes in respect of which the End may be called the Foundation vpon which depends the Election of the Meanes and in vaine it is that the Foundation cannot faile the building if the building may fall from the Foundation And if for example to build high were a meanes to make the building not fall from the Foundation as digging deepe makes the Foundation not faile the building men would be as carefull to build high as now they make sure to digg low for better setling the Foundation and every one would ayme at a tower of Babel Now the Apostles received of the Holy Ghost infallibility not for themselves alone but for the good of the Church and it is no less easy for God to bestowe absolute infallibility vpon the Church than vpon the Apostles vpon the Edifice than vppon the Foundation and therfore no wonder if the Church partake of the same stability and infallibility with Her Foundation for the substance not for the manner that is as the Apostles were so the Church is free from all errour but so as the Church received Her Doctrine from the Apostles and not the Apostles from the Church You find fault with Charity Maintayned who making right vse of this metaphore argues that as a Foundation alone is not a house so to belieue Fundamentalls or the Foundation alone is not sufficient to constitute a Church or house of God without the beliefe of all Points sufficiently propounded as revealed by God and now yourselfe ground a matter of greatest moment the infallibility of the Church vpon the same metaphore very ill applyed towards any other purpose except to proue the contradictory of that for which you alledge it and to confute yourselfe as even now I haue demonstrated And besides all this seing in your Doctrine we belieue the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Apostles or that there were any such men as the Apostles for the Authority of the Church or vniversall Tradition the Church to you is the Foundation of your beliefe that the Apostles were infallible and consequently if your deduction be good the infallibility of the Church must be greater than that of the Apostles because the Foundation must be stronger than the Edifice and so your owne argument directly overthrowes that which you would proue by it 36. By what I haue now sayd your other reason in the same place is answered That a dependent infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of Apostles as the streightnesse of the thing regulated vpon the streightnesse of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing els but an agregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles 37. Answer How many flawes appeare in these not many words And to omit that of Dependance this Reason is not distinct from the former taken from the metaphor of a Foundation to which must be applied the Reason for which we assent to a thing and which therfore is the foundation on which our assent depends I say First Your conclusion is not contrary to the Assertion of your adversary A foule fault in Logicke which teaches that alwayes the conclusion of the disputant ought to be directly contradictory to that which the Defendant affirmes and not consistent with it Otherwise the Opponent would be discovered to fight with no-body You conclude Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles Which is nothing against Charity Maintayned who proved only that the Church is so certaine and infallible in Her Definitions that they cannot be false forbearing to dispute whether one certainty may be greater then another and therfore secondly you mistake or wittingly alter the question passng from intension or degrees of certainty in order to the same Points to extension of infallibility to different kinds of objects as if though it were granted that the Apostles were more infallible than the Church intensiuè or in respect of the same Points in which both she and the Apostles are infallible because she depends on the Apostles it must follow that the Church cannot be extensiuè as infallible as they were that is cannot be infallible in Points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which is a very inconsequent consequence it being sufficient that the A postles be more infallible than the Church quoad modum seing she depends on them and they not on her as the Apostles were not so infallible intensiuè as our Saviour and yet you will not inferr that their infallibility also must be so limited extensivè as not to reach to vnfundamentall Points and as the Church for Fundamentall Points is builded and depends vpon the Apostles and so quoad modum not so infallible as they were yet Protestants grant that she is absolutly infallible in fuch Points though for them she depend on the Apostles and your reason is against this infallibility as well as against her infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and therfore proves in neither Thirdly according to this your discourse no naturall truth can be inferred with certainty from the most common and knowne Principles of naturall reason as Nothing can be and not be at the same tyme. Every whole is greater than any one part included therin and the like because whatsoever is inferred from such knowne Axiomes must depend on them and therfore not be certaine nor infallible If then your meaning be that the Church is not absolutely infallible because she depends on the infallibility of the Apostles your Reason is manifestly false If you meane that she may be absolutly infallible though not so infallible as the Apostles quoad modum you speake not to the purpose but grant as much as we desire 38. You say It is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule that is from the Doctrine and infallibility of the Apostles being nothing els out an aggregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour And
infallibility to Fundamentalls I say the Major of this Syllogisme on which all depends is deceitfull For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls by only and precisely granting the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribing to the Apostles the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner yet he may doe it by some other way and in particular by the meanes of which now we speake that is by restraining the selfe same words of Scripture which without distinction speak of the Apostles and the Church to Fundamentall Points in respect of the Church and not in order to the Apostles and this voluntarily without proofe from any other evident Text of Scripture which yet in the Grounds of Protestants were necessary in this case As also by proving the fallibility of the Church by Arguments which must involue the Apostles no lesse than the Church as even now I haue proved Howsoever that you are not a faithfull interpreter of Dr Potter appeares by your saying He out of curtesy grants you that those words the Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you for ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense they may be vnderstood of the Church For where doth Dr Potter say that these words agree to the Church in a conditionall sense Which conditionall sense you interpret N. 34. to singify if the Church adhere to the direction of the Apostles and so far as she doth adhere to it which overthrowes the doctrine of Potter and other Protestants that the Church is absolutely infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentall Points in which yet she might erre if the promise of our Saviour were only conditionall and it would giue no more to the Church than to any private person who is sure not to erre not only in Fundamentall but even in vnfundamentall Points as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles And by this reflection the difficulty against Dr Potter and you growes to be greater how the same words of Scripture are vnderstood both of the Apostles and of the Church absolutely for Points Fundamentall and only conditionally for the Church in Points not Fundamentall And how will you be able to proue this various acception of the same words in order to the same Church and not only in respect of the Apostles and the Church by any other evident Text of Scripture You say to Cha Ma Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Doctour sayes which yet I know he never intended no more was promised in this place therfore he sayes no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 41. Answer If the Doctour spoke beyond or contrary to what he intended I cannot wonder since whosoever defends a bad cause is subject to write contradictions which yet men intend no to doe You say there may be other places besides this I answer It is neither in your nor in any mans power to alledg any place which may not be interpreted and restrayned as you limit this of which we speake Certainly the Doctour being to proue the absolute infallibility of the Apostles was much to blame for alledging ineffectuall Texts if He could haue found better Indeed I find in his Pag 152. these words That other promise of Christs being with his Matth 28.20 vnto the end of the world is properly meant as some Ancients truly giue the sense of his comfortable ayde and assistance supporting the weaknesse of his Apostles and their Successours in their Ministery or preaching of Christ But it may well be also applyed as it is by others (a) 5. Leo Scrm 10 de Nativ Cap 5. to the Church vniversall Which is ever in such manner assisted by the good Spirit that it never totally falls from Christ But as in the other Texts so in this the Question returnes to be asked by what evident place of Scripture can you or He proue that this Text speakes of an vniversall Assistance for the Apostles and only a limited direction for the Church seeing Potter grants that it may well be also applyed as it is by others to the Church vniversall You could say N. 30. Shew where it is written that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end And much more may we say to you Shew some evidenr Text of Scripture that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Church only in Fundamentalls or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction I say much more may we say Shew c. Because the truth Authority and infallibility of the Church is proved independently of Scripture as the infallibility of the Apostles was proved before any Scripture of the New Testament was written But you who hold that we can belieue nothing as a matter of Faith vnlesse it be evidently set downe in Scripture are obliged either to proue the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church by some evident Text of Scripture or els you cannot be assured of it as a thing revealed by God You see how hard you were pressed and therfore were forced to giue this noble answer That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants vs that those words The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense may be vnderstood of the Church But I haue shewed that you misalledge the Doctour who sayes expressly that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now I aske whether or no it be true that this promise is verifyed in the Church If it be true that is if God hath revealed it to be so one would thinke it were no point of ceremony or courtesy but a matter of necessity to acknowledge so much It seemes you thinke the Doctour was of your disposition who Pag 69. N. 47. say to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose But I goe on and say if it be not true nor revealed that those words are verifyed of the Church how durst Potter affirme that they were verifyed of Her Is it lawfull to add to the old and coyne new Revelations Doth not Potter say Pag 222. to add to it he speakes of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it 42. You say The Apostles must be ledd into all such truths as was requisite to make them the
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
Maintayned sayd not so much as he might haue sayd of Potters assertion and therfor was far enough from doing him any wrong 48. Thirdly Seing that one must not at first be referred to Scripture as we haue proved nor to Generall Councells which Dr. Potter says may erre weakely and so be deceaved and wilfully and so deceaue nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all togeather as you grant the Doctour sayes what remaines but that he must deale a parte with every particular member of the Church Which being also impossible as is clear of it selfe and when you seeke to proue it you labour for your Adversary who sayeth the very same thing it remaines that all the wayes which Potter can propose to a man desirous to saue his soule are not only ineffectuall but impossible also and only chalke out a way to desperation and that He and other Protestants must haue patience to be told this truth that they must not wonder if contradictories be deduced from their Assertions which they must often vary even against their wills Ch Ma never intended to make or not make a difference betweene the vniversall Church and the whole Church militant but only Pag. 137. cites the Doctours words as he findes them and proves that they cannot serue for the effect of quieting an afflicted soule not regarding whether those different words which he vseth signifie any different thing or noe 49. Fourthly Seing in pursuit of some good and infallible ground wheron to settle Divine Faith Potter can admit none but the Scripture or the vniversall Church and that Scripture cannot instruct vs with certainty independently of the Church as we haue demonstrated nor that the whole Church can be consulted it remaines only that he must wish one to finde out some who believes all fundameÌ„tall points and follow him and that then the first question to passe betweene them should be to know whether he knows all such points and if this cannot be knowne it is cleare the Doctour can giue no satisfaction to any considering man desirous to know the truth It is pretty that you tell vs the Doctour in all his Booke gives no such Answer as this procure to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of Faith as if Ch Ma had pretended to relate a history and not only to tell the Reader what Potter must be forced to answer according to his grounds Though I grant he will by doing so be necessitated to contradict both Truth and Himselfe And you will never be able to shew but that Potter must make such answers as Ch ma exprest if the Doctor will be faithfull to his owne grounds Your discourse about probabilities and even wagers is impertinent both because we deny that indeed Dr. Potters opinion about the Creed hath any probability at all and because Ch Ma speakes only of probabilities and even wagers which is a good comparison seing a thing very probable doth not hinder but that the contradictory may be very probable and so be eaven or equall one to an other aÌ„d your talking of probability in the highest degree is your owne addition or fiction and not the Doctors Assertion as may be seene in his Pag. 241. and yourself expresly confess N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194. that he affirmed it only to be very probable that the Creed containes all necessary points of those which you call Credenda What you write so often about the vncertainty that one is a Pope hath been answered at large 50. Fiftly Who can deny but that whosoever desires to be saved and knowes that to obtaine salvation it is necessary to belieue explicitly all fundamentall points will instantly judge it necessary to know what those points be as de facto Ch. Mist vrged to haue a Catalogue of them Now if to satisfy this demand Dr. Potter gives vs no other answer but only some Definitions and Descriptions or Explications of the name Fundamentall without specifying what they are in particular and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man what can I helpe that Or who can blame Ch Ma for having sayd as much as Dr. Potters Booke could enable him to say Neither hath he patched vp any thing out of the Doctours Booke which he the Doctor is not obliged to grant according to his owne grounds as I haue sayd 51. Sixthly Seing every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamentall it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall You say Dr. Potter would haue answered it is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall But by your leaue this businesse cannot be dispatched to soone For by occasion of your Answer I must make some demands whether every one is obliged to belieue or know explicitly those points of the Creed which are not fundâ—mentall To say every one is bound were to make them properly Fundamentall For we haue heard Potter saying Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith If one be not obliged to belieue explicitely those points of the Creed which are not fundamentall then I am not bound to know the Creed that I may know them Perhaps some may say I am obliged to know the Creed because it containes fundamentall points which I am bound to know expresly and so I shall at least per accidens and by consequence be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall This Answer must suppose that I am obliged vnder damnation to know that Symbol which we call the Creed of the Apostles and seing Protestants professe that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture alone they must shew out of some expresse evident text of Scripture such a command which you know is impossible to be done since Scripture never mentions any such thing as the Apostles Creed and therfor one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamentall in vertue of a precept to know the Creed seing Protestants cannot belieue any command obliging men to know the Creed c. Besides All the Arguments which proue that the Creed was composed by the Apostles or that it containes all fundamentall points must be grounded vpon the Authority of the Church which according to Potter and other Protestants may erre in points not fundamentall and none of them affirmes that it is a fundamentall point which all vnder damnation are bound explicitely to belieue that the Apostles composed the Creed or that it containes all fundamentall points and then men cannot be sure that all points contained in it are true and much lesse can they be obliged to belieue explicitly by an act of Faith every Article therof according to the grounds of Protestants Moreover suppose one were perswaded that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true yet the arguments which Potter brings
to giue vp his owne And when or where did all Churches vnitedly and joyntly offer vp this vniversall supreme Authority to the Bishop of Rome 32. To the authority cited by Ch Ma out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. Heresies haue sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause than for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God You answer that S. Cyprian spoke not of Cornelius but of Himself and yet you confess N. 91. that Goulartius a learned Protestant grants that it is meant of Cornelius and Pamelius in his Annotations vpon this Epistle of S. Cyprian brings divers Arguments to proue the same Neither can it be denyed but that in his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae he affirmes Heresies to spring from not acknowledging one Head S. Peter vpon whom our Saviour builded his Church Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia Cathedra vna monstretur Which is so manifest that the Protestant Chroniclers cent 3. col 84. lin 59. say Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse vr Lib. 1. Epist 3. which is the Epistle cited by C. Ma. and of which we now speak And Lib 4. Epist 9. c. But although it were granted that S. Cyprian in his Epist 55. did speak of a particular Church it is cleare that for avoiding Schisme in the whole Church there is a necessity of one Head if for that cause one Head be necessary in every particular Church as heretofore we cited out of S. Hierom that among the Apostles one was chosen vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio And even Dr. Covell a learned Protestant in his examination c. saieth How can they think that equality would keepe all the Pastors in the world in peace and vnity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure vnity and obedience Otherwise the Church should be in a farre worse case then the meanest commonwealth To which purpose he alledges that Sentence which we mentioned out of S. Hierom vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio You say whether the words of S. Cyprian condemne Luther is another Question Answer If those words condemne Luther of Schisme for withdrawing his Obedience from the Pope which Ch Ma affirmes and you for the present do not deny it evidently implies that the Pope was Superiour to him and all other Christians 33. In your N. 99.100 you labour to elude these words of S. Optatus alledged by C. Ma in the same N. 36. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that in the Citty of Rome there was first an Episcopall chaire placed for Peter wherin Peter the head of all the Apostles sat whereof also he was called Cephas in which one chaire vnity was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire aÌ„d that he should be a Schismatique and a sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect an other lib 2. cont Parmen You tell vs That the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction and that Optatus proves them Schismatikes for so doing vpon this ground of one Bishop in one Church But whosoever reads Optatus will clearly see that he expresly speaks of the Catholique not of a particular Church which he saieth hath quinque ornamenta or dotes the first whereof is a chaire on which chaire of the Catholique and vniversall Church he saith S. Peter first sat whom he calls the Head of all the Apostles whereof he was called Cephas in which one Chaire vnity was to be kept by all Now I beseech you is it not cleare that Optatus speaks of S. Peter and of his Sea not as of a particular Bishop of a particular Church but as Head of the Catholique Church by whose meanes vnity was to be conserved and that Schisme and Heresie are to be discovered by opposition to that chayre which he calls singularem cathedram and may well signify not only a single or particular or individuall chaire but indeed singular by reason of singular preeminence and priviledg aboue all other Churches For this cause he speaks thus to the Donatist Parmenian Contra quas portas inferorum claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum cui a Christo dictum est Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum portae inferorum non vincenteas Vnde est ergo quod claves regni vobis vsurpare contenditis qui contra cathedram Petri vestris presumptionibus audacijs sacrilegio militatis To what purpose should he insist vpon these priviledges of S. Peter and his Chaire if he meant no more than what is common to all particular Churches Or how doth he afterward proue that they whom the Donatists opposed were â—in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est But why do I labour to proue that which our Adversaries your Brethren are forced to grant For the Centurists cent 4. col 556. lin 17. alledg Optatus calling Peter Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur And indeed not only in the place alledged but also lib 7. he calls S. Peter caput Apostolorum And Fulk in his Retentiue Pag 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit c He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles You say When Optatus stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and sayes that from thence he was called Cephas Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greek word Kephale wheras it is a Syriack word and signisies a stone But what imports it vpon what ground he called him head seing he called him so and believed him to be such Beside that which is the stone Rock or Foundation in a materiall Building in a mysticall Body is the Head as the vulgar saying is Homo est arbor inversa The roote is to a tree as the Head is to a man and therefore our Saviour sayd I will build my Church vpon this Rock after he had saied to S. Peter that he was a Rock In this manner the Centurists Cent 3. col 85. say that Origines Tract 5. in Matth dicit Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum and yet that Hom 17 in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem where we see that S. Peter is called both a Foundation and a Prince Chiefe or Head 34. But now giue me leaue to say plainly that it is intollerable in you to impugne by Reasons which you expressie only call probabilityes a matter delivered clearly in Scripture testifyed by Antiquity embraced by Nations and corroborated by the great Plea of Possession peacefull and tyme out of mynd against all which what wisdom is it to oppose meere Topicall Socinian conjectures You saie First That S. Peter should haue authority
as if the certainty of attayning an end did exclude Meanes of Exhortations Praier and the like or as if God could not effectually moue vs to what he best pleases vnless he also make vs belieue that we may tempt him by omitting all diligence of our owne towards the attaining of that to which he moves vs or interposes a Promise that he will grant it vs. You say if we belieue the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon the Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome of being the principall Church was grounded vpon this reason because the City was the principall and imperiall Citie But I conceiue yourself cannot belieue that the Greek Church would or could yeald such a spirituall Prerogatiue to the Latine Church vpoÌ„ so slight a ground though that might be a kind of congruence supposing an other higher and stronger Reason to wit that S. Peter had lived and died Bishop of that Citie which was as I may saie the Primate of Cities Yet I am not sorie to heare you say We do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the chaire of Peter in regard he is sayd to haue preached the Gospell there For to omit that you dare not deny that S. Peter was at Rome which some Protestants impudently deny you giue so poore a reason why the Church of Rome hath bene particularlie by the Fathers called the chaire of Peter that every one may see there must be some better ground for it than that which you alledge of his preaching in that Citie as it is graÌ„ted that he not only preached in but was Bishop of the Citie of Antioch and he preached in many other places which yet are not wont to be called the Chaire of Peter I beseech the Reader to peruse that learned Book called Anti-Mortonus against the GraÌ„d imposture of D. Morton § 4. about the Councell of Chalcedon aÌ„d he will find what Power was acknowledged to be in the Bishop of Rome aboue all Bishops through the whole world to say nothing for the present that no Councell without the confirmatioÌ„ of the Pope is of validity 26. Your N. 28. 29. 30. containe long discourses vpon occasion of a place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Irenaeus who Lib. 3. Cont. Hoeres Chap 36. saieth Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to vs by succession of Bishops confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of themselves or vaine glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather conventicles otherwise then they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes beene conserved from those who are every where 27. To this authority of S. Irenaeus you giue divers answers which vpon examination will be found insufficient and contrary to yourself You say the words set downe by Ch Ma shew that what Authority in the matter S. Irenaeus attributed to the Roman Church in particular the same for the kind though pâ—rhaps not in the same degree he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches Answer S. Irenaeus is so farre from affirming an equality betwene the Roman and other Churches that he expresly prefers her before the rest in such manner as though the rest had then had no Being yet all Heretiques might haue bene confuted by her sole authority For seing he acknowledges it needless to number the successions of other Churches in order to the force of his Argument he might as well haue supposed them not to exist as not to be necessarily taken notice of which he never saied of any other Apostolique Church Beside since he takes the Roman for as good as all other Apostolique Churches and for the same reason of all other Churches of that tyme whose successours he held it needless to reckon it being impossible that all Churches should faile in Faith we must conclude even out of S. Irenaeus his Reason that the Roman Church cannot faile in points of Belief And as for you I wonder how you would end your N. 28. in these words If v. Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible then surely he could never think either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique For seing Cyou hold hristian Faith te be no more than probable and that the Tradition for which you receyue Scripture is humane and fallible how can you these your assertions supposed affirme that a testimony humane and fallible may not be sufficient to proue one a Catholique or Heretique Vnless you will say he is no Heretique who rejects Scripture and all Christianity nor that he is a Catholique who believes them because you profess that the motives for which you belieue them are fallible 28. You find fault with the noble Translatresse of Cardinall Perron for rendring Ad hane Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree But if you will but consult Cowpers Dictionary you will find that you haue no reason against that noble Translatresse See I say the word Conveni and you will finde Convenit in eum haec Contumelia Cic. This reproach toucheth him justly Conveniunt hae vites ad quemvis agrum Cato Uarro These vines proue well in all grounds Conveniebat in tuam vaginam machaera militis Plautus The solidours sword was meete for thy Scabbard Convenit optime ad pedem cothurnus Cic. The slippar is as meete for the foote as may be Will you say This reproach resorts to him vines resort to the field the sword resorts to the scabbard the slippar resorts to the foote Neither is that Translation either contrary or different from the Translation of Ch Ma for as much as concernes the matter and meaning of S. Irenaeus To this Church it is necessary that all Churches resort For why should all Churches resort to this Roman Church but that they may be instructed by her and agree with her in matters concerning Faith not that they may correct controll and disagree from her Otherwise it had bene a strang Argument to convince Heretiques by the Roman Church if he had not taken that Church as a modell and Rule with which they ought to agree Neither doth resort signify a corporall going to Rome but a recourse for instruction either by going thither themselves or by other meanes as you must say of those who are round about But you say if S. Irenaeus had saied By shewing the tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques For to this Church all Churches must agree what had
with Pelagius and free-will with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 seq Many hideous Tenets of his concerninge Faith discovered in all the first Chap He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sinne I. n. â—1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certaine then humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to belieue Scripture to be of Divine authority c. 2 n. 58 p. 159 alibi And it is evident in his grounds that God is no more to be believed then man if God give no better reason for what he sayes then man doth c. 1 n. 101 p. 108 That it is no matter if controversies concerning truths only profitable be continued and increased c. 2 n. 78 p. 182 That Scripture is no materiall object of Taith and that there is no obligation to beleeue it c. 3 n. 4 p. 281 and in other numb before and after Also c. 13 n. 39 p 818 That the Apostles after the cominge of the Holy Ghost erred in a point clearly revealed c. 7 n. 24 p. 472. 473 c. 3 n. 28 p. 298 He brings all Christian Faith to a humane invention c. 3 n. 83 p. 344 seq He puts such a contrition for salvation which a sinner cannot possbly haue at the hower of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviours promise that the Holy Ghost should remaine with the Apostles was not for their successoâ—s but only for the terme of their lives nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives VViclifs Heresie n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true with many horrid impietyes which strike at the roote of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 seq His insolent treatie of S. Tho of Aqui c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little considence in his owne Religion c. 16 n. 11 p. 939 His absurdity in contending that it is all one to say Though such a thing be so and though it were so n. 21 p. 945 946 His impudent callinge God to witnesse of his sincerity in writing his Booke to confirme the infallible Religion of our Saviour which he strives in his whole Booke to prooue fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948 Many other of his pernitious Tenets appeare in this whole Booke and his errours against Scripture toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently shewed that no particular place needs be cited The like is of his continuall begging the question or asking impertinently in place of proofe why may not such athing be with out any proofe Church To follow the Church is to follow Scripture which recommends the Church vnto vs c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceaved in interpreting Scripture Ibid Her vniversall practice is to be held an Apostolicall Tradition Ibid Many things are to be done for her authority without expresse Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sinnes of Manners but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 seq Vnity necessary to be members of one Church must be in all points sufficieÌ„tly proposed sundamentall or not fundamentall n. 74 p. 505 seq And in externall Communion Ibid which in divine service is vnlawfull with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leaue the Church and to Ieaue her externall Communion nor can any separate from her and remaine a part of her n. 73 p. 503 sequen He not only separates from the Church who separates from her externall Communion but alsomorally from himselfe n. 110 p. 532 seq No Church no Schisme n. 93.94 p. 523 If the Church be infallible in fundamentalls she must also be so in vnfundamentalls n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any poynt sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remaine a Church with any such errour n. 6 p. 635 seq She beinge infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require and is for them eudued with infallibility n. 11 p. 639 640 Her fallibility for one age discredits her for all c. 11 n. 26 p. 667 The true Church easy to be found by her notes in every age n. 31 p. 670 seq Many disparityes between the Church and the Synagogue n. 38 p. 674 The Church having approved Scripture for Canonicall proves out of it particular truths concerning her selfe n. 67 p. 697 In what sense she is an infallible keeper of Scripture c. 3 n. 52 p. 320 seq She never questioned or rejected any thing of Scripture which the had once defined for Canonicall n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofes before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 toto c. 5 She is viâ ordinariâ the meanes for matter of Religion c. 4 n. 67 p. 396 seq The Church was before Scripture Ibid passim alibi She was never devested of infallibility c. 4 n. 72 p. 399 sequen She cannot perish nor be invisible nor deceaved in points belonging to Salvation She is the ordinary meanes to teach and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 sequen Infallibility granted her for all points belonging to Religion but nor for curiosityes n. 95 p. 418 sequen She vsed disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42â— She essentially requires vnity in Faith and in in the externall worship of God Divivision from her in Faith is heresie in externall communion is Schisme c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into errour all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is indued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mysticall body for every degree for every particular person c. 2 n. 2 p. 122 seq She is recommended by him for the interpretation of Scripture and who refuses it resists him n. 28 p. 124 She must haue infallible meanes to declare with certainty things though only profitable n. 73 p. 176 seq It would be damnable in her to neglect truths only profitable n. 77 p. 181 If she should out of negligence mistake or be ignorant her errour would be damnable c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 seq She is extensiuè of equall infallibility with the Apostles but not intensiuè i.e. in the manner num 35 p. 731 seq If her authority be câ—â—taine for Scripture it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes n. 52 p. 746 She being once prooved to be infallible may giue irrefragable testimony of her owne infallibility n. 107 p. 787 How the Church is alwayes visible c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 VVhat right and power she had and for many ages had bene peaceable possessed of at Luthers cominge n.
Epistle to the Hebrews that it was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elswere he receives it as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Herome concerning his rejecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words advers Ruff Apolog 2. wheras I haue reported what the Hebrewes vsed to object against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the Three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bel which are not in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and he calls Russinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explaining himselse in this manner is acknowledged by Covell Answ to Bourges Pag 87. and Bankcroft Confer before his Majesty How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article saith in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apocryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as S. Hierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome even according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord And so your whole Canon of the Old Testament relyes vpon the Authority of the Jewes Thus far Charit Maint Which you did not well to conceale And while you will not receaue the Canon from the vniversall Church before Luther you send men to the Jewes Now that S. Hierome received the Epistle to the Hebrewes for Canonicall appeares out of his Epistle ad Dardanum where he saith of this Epistle of S. Paul and the Apocalyps of S. John Nos vtraque suscipimus we receaue them both though we haue heard him say before ad Paulinum that the Epistle to the Hebrewes was put out of the number by the greatest part of men But howsoever this were particular Opinyons do nothing concerne the Definitions of the Church as I saied 22. You say N. 92. How can we receiue the Scripture vpon the authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at severall tymes Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for authenticall and Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancâ—ent Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes accordig to the vulgar Edition but aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtuâ— and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 23. Answer It is intolerable in you to presume that your word must be taken without so much as offering any least proofe for what you say wheras you could not be ignorant but that all difficultyes which either Protestants or any other Heretikes could object against vs haue beene considered and confuted by learned Catholikes And why did you not cite those different and repugnant Texts which you mention in Malachie Yet the Reader at aventure may read Bellarmine De Missa L. 1. C. 10. and Corn à Lapide vpon Malach 1.11 where they learnedly proue the holy Sacrifice of the Masse out of that place and solidly answer all the objections to the contrary For that which you mention of the Story of Jacob in Genesis compared with the Epâ—â—â—â—e to the Hebrewes I wish you had so declared your objection that I might haue applyed a particular and determinate answer therto Now I can only conjecture what you meane and desire the Reader if he desire satisfaction in this matter to peruse what Corn a Lapide writes vpon Heb 11.21 where he learnedly answers the difficulty which may seeme to be in this place compared with the 47. Chap V. 31. of Genesis see also the annotation of the Rhemes testament vpon the said place of S. Paul and the annotation of the Doway translation vpon Gen 47.31 who declare this very well and the former she wes that in your Translation you clearly falsify the Text of Scripture I wonder you do not blush to talke of the Bible of Sixtus and Clement having seene the full Answer which Ch Ma giveth to that objection made also by Potter which is a signe you could not indeed confute what Ch Ma said therin Part 2. Chap 6. N. 3. 24. Your N. 93.94.95.96.67 haue bene sufficiently answered already yet I will touch some Points You say N. 93. If it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige him or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture 25. Answer You will needs be still confounding effectually and irresistibly wherof I spoke enough hertofore For the present I say that God hath obliged himselfe so to teach the Church effectually the true interpretation of Scripture that we are infallibly certaine she is free from all errour in Faith which is a priviledge absolutely necessary as those things are not which you specify N. 96. That he should not only guard them from all errours but guide them to all profitable Truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be and that he should de end them irresislibly from all vices and infuse into them irresistibly all vertues These things I say are not necessary as true Faith is necessary for constituting one a member of the Church which hath beene proved hertofore even out of Protestants Who will not wonder at these words of yours to Ch Mat If you say he cannot do this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in prefessing their beliefe For who sees not but that by this meanes you take away the infallibility of the Apostles yea of our Saviour himselfe whom you belieue not to be God Or els you must grant that men may be infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost without taking away their free will and so you must either contradict yourselfe or blaspheme against the infallibility of the Apostles and certaine truth of Christian Religion 26. The Answer which you giue N. 97. to the place which Ch Ma N. 18. cited out of S. Austine I would not belieue the
Gospell vnless the authority of the Church did moue me is easily confuted That which moved the Saint to belieue the Gospell was not the authority of any particular Church but of the vniversall which deserves as much credit and is as infallible in one age as in another For if the whole Church of this age could erre what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this and so vpward from one to another more than to this present age and so we could not ground any certainty vpon the Tradition of the whole Churâ—â— of all ages vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the beâ—â—ere of Scripture Your other saying The Christian Tradition being as fall against Manâ—â—haâ—â—s as it was for the Gospell He S. Austine did well to conclude that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus as to belieue the Gospâ—ll overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants that all thinges necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture alone For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell and yet in this second Chapter Pag 114. N. 155. You say Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine having atteâ—â—ation from Tradition truly vniverfall for this reason we conceiue as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of Controversyes so their writings now they are dead are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by If being pressed you tell vs perforce that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus but the Tradition which delivered Scripture and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone you manifestly contradict S. Austine Cont Ep Fund Chap 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18. I would not â—elieue the Gospell vnless the Authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me do not belieue Manichaeus Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus vpon the same Authority for which he believed Scripture which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church and therfore both the Scripture and Doctrine or interpretation therof we must receiue from the Church Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 18. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say belieue the Catholikes They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therfore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say do not belieue the Catholikes thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommeÌ„ding Manichaenâ— Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Thus far S. Austine From whose words Cha Ma makes this reflection Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Austine spake when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to belieue Her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically than doctrinally when he sayd Lib de Utilit cred Cap 14. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to be if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Belieue them that we ought to belieue Christ But learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me anything I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ than that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therfore saith Cha Ma we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scripture from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and interpretation of Scripture 27. The application of S. Austines words in your N. 99. to any particular Church is impertinent and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument who as I haue sayd received the Gospell vpoÌ„ the credit of the vniversall Church aÌ„d not vpoÌ„ the Authority of any particular Church or private person and of the vniversall Church he had all reason to say that as for her Authority he believed the Gospell so for the same authority he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus which that vniversall Church condemned But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages and all the Churches or vniversall Church of every Age which must be no less infallible than all the Churches of all Ages and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age vpon which mistake your whole objection goes N. 99. about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument But wheras you say the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity but being first converted were afterward perverted by the Arians as may be seene in Baronius Ann 370. This answer confutes your passionate bitter declamation vented in your N. 101. 28. Your N. 100. demands whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits to say that Protestants would haue men beâ—eue the Roman Church delâ—vering Scripture wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture which are not so And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it 29. Answer as aboue that either you received the Scripture vpon the credit of the Roman Church and such Churches as agreed with her or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy admitting and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible vnles you receaue it for that Reason because the Church delivers it And your admitting some Bookes and rejecting others which the Church receives doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes 30. You say N. 103. As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes I wonder