the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt
he call his Faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet further Ibid. Lib. 3. know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise than it hath once bene preached 24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer First that he writing to Damasus a Pope might be apt to write over-truths An answer not deserving a confutation Secondly you say S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman But this hath bene answered heretofore neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church Pope or Councell excluding that Epistle from the Canon or rejecting any Book of the old or New Testament which was afterward admitted Thirdly you ask How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections when you fly to so farre fetched evasions and your proceeding is inexcusable in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. Part. 2. Chap. 3 N. 30. gives out of Baronius Ann. 357. and Bellarmine De Roman Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. who affirme that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme or any error against Faith but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact and even greater Protestants than you doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra any errour against Faith but only that de facto by force of feare theates banishment and other sufferings he did subscribe against S. Athanasius as S. Peter denied our Saviour without forfeit of his Faith though he failed in the profession thereof our Saviour having saied Oravi pro te Petre vtnon deficiat Fides tua or as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul even after the comming of the holy Ghost and yet I hope you will not denie but that one might haue saied I am in the coÌ„munio of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built vpoÌ„ tkat Rock whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth and the same I say S. Hierom might haue saied of and to Liberius defining as Pope not as failing in fact as a man and we see that both before and after that forced act he was constaÌ„t not only in the true faith which he never lost but also in the profession thereof and what he did by force and feare must no more be imputed to him as Pope than a confession extorted by torture can be of force without a voluntary ratification Our Saviour saied men were to obey the words of the Scribes aÌ„d Pharisees not their deeds Is it not a doctrine of your owne Pag. 144 N. 31. that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain in no part of that which they delivered â—onstantly And certaine it is that Liberius did not make good his subscription if ever he subscribed to an errour but revoked it assoone as he was at liberty and as I may say taken of the Torture as alwaies before he had defended the Catholique truth If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls who will therefore say that he believed or defined Idolary to be Lawfull And vniversally if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions whosoever committs theft murther or any other sinne against the commandements must be condemned for an Heretique as believing theft to be Lawfull Finally if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms ArgumeÌ„t to cosist in this that Damasus was in the right only actually and accidentally the Saint had begged the Question and proved his owne Doctrine to be true because Damasus held with him and that which Damasus held de facto was true though Damasus might erre as other Bishops might whereas it is cleare that S. Hierom as his words express grounds himself vpon that firme and stable Rock of which our Saviour saied Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you â—llie N. 24. for interpreting the words of S. Ambros. 25. For your N. 25.26.27 I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31. whereof see also Bellarm in De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7. where this matter is handled at large And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian being disinterressed and delivering a generall Doctrine and prescriptions against all Heretiques and S. Cyprian speaking in a particular point wherein he was ingaged and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour condemned by the whole Church against the Donatists namely the rebaptization of such as had bene baptized by Heretiques and by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as Charity Maint in the place cited even now shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader in not making a difference betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen and a Definition of Faith which difference you might haue learned in that very place which you cite out of Bellarmine and we haue now alledged In fine all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian seing he was in an errour against Faith and therefore could be excused only by ignorance or pardoned by repentance In vaine N. 26. you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse but should haue sayd to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse But this you say without proofe against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul not of Fidelity and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness or errour contrarie to Faith not of perfidiousness contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity For what congruity is there in this speach The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle therefore perfidiousness or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them as if all who belieue aright must also besincere and vpright honest men Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare that if their Faith be true errour against Faith or falshood cannot be approved by them You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretiques if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome to be infallible for matters of Faith
ground of Protestāts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment mēt I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged ādshew that they are neither evidēt nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them ād the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple ād successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commādemēts ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by
the whole wheresoever it is spred but is found separate in some parte it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation only to belieue that Christ is the sonne of God 64. The example of men of Beroea Act 17. V 11. who were searching the scriptures if these things were so is of no force in many respects First Heere is no least insinuation of any vniversall precept to reade or search the scriptures but only a narratioÌ„ of what those meÌ„ did and if the fact of some may be alledged as a command for all to reade the scriptures why may not the example of others who belieued only by hearing S. Paule and the other Apostles preach and seeing them worke Miracles and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Creâ—â—â—bility be alledged for a command that men should belieue without delaying their conversion till they reade scriptures Secondly they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular Mysteryes of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them which is our question but only that mayne poynt which was preached to them by S. Paule that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you V. 3 other particular poynts they would easily learne by further instruction of the Apostles being once assured in generall that they were persons worthy of all credit and Messengers of God Thirdly The scriptures which they did search were the Bookes of the Old testament in which all the necessary particular poynts of Christian Faith are not evidently contayned since Protestants teach that all necessary poynts are contayned in scripture only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended yea the word searching shewes that euen that article of the true Messias was not evidently contayned in the Old testament but that the finding of it required labour as in the like case I shewed aboue out of S. Chrissostome and others about the word scrutamini search Fourtly Although the search of scriptures and consonance of them with s. Paules wordes might help the conversion of those meÌ„ yet who can doubt but the preaching and viva vox interpretation and explication of scripture alledged vrged and illustrated by S. Paul did also cooperate and operate more then the only reading of scriptures which many did reade and yet were not converted Which shewes their obscurity even in this Fundamentall Article concerning the Messias as we reade Act. 13.27 Not knowing him nor the voyces of the prophets that are read every sabboth And Luc. 24.44.45 it is sayd These are the words which I spake to you when I was with you that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses and the Prophets and the Psalmes of me Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstaÌ„d the scriptures Wherfor the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose vnless it can be proved that they redd the scripture without the assistance of such other meanes as I haue mentioned and that they found theÌ„ so â—â—ident that they needed no other help which certainly is wholy impossible to be proved Even Cartwright in whitg Def. P. 784. confesseth that Vnless the Lord workes miraculously and excraordinarily the bare reading of the scriptures without the preaching caÌ„not deliver so much as one poore sheepe from destruction Therfor scripture is not evident in all necessary Poynts otherwise it might deliver men from destruction Fiftly I say that not only those men had no obligation to read the scripture before they believed S. Paul but as the rhemes testameÌ„t vpon this place wisely observes they were bound to belieue the Apostle aÌ„d obey his word whether he alledged scripture or no or whether they could reade and vnderstand it or no. Therfor this example cannot be alledged to proue that all necessary Poynts of Faith are evident in scripture alone Sixtly This example is wholy impertineÌ„t if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort aÌ„d confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul aÌ„d not by searching the scriptures as Cornelius à Lapide holds and to that purpose alledges the Text itself which sayth V. 11. And these were more noble theÌ„ they that are at Thessalonica who receyved the word with all greediness daily searching the scriptures if these things were so Where first it is sayd they receyved the word and then were searching the scriptures And this also is the judgment of the Rhemes TestameÌ„t 65. Besides the places which I haue answered Protestants are wont to alledg the words of the Apocalyps 22. V. 18.19 I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecie of this Booke If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues writteÌ„ in this book And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life aÌ„d out of the holy citie aÌ„d of these things that be writteÌ„ in this booke But what is this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to reade and seek out of the Apocalyps alone for of it only S. Iohn expressly declares himself to speake all necessary Poynts of Christian Faith or that it contaynes evidently all such points in particular So farr was this sacred booke from having been written for a Catechisme or an entire Rule of Faith that it is a Prophecy or revelation of things to come so hidden and sublime and profound that S. Hierome sayth Tot habet SacrameÌ„ta quot verba Every word is a Mystery The curse which S. John interminates falls vpon such as either would add any thing contrary to this book or corrupt it by fathering on it some apocriphall writing or Revelation or diminish it by some part or which is worst of all quite abolish it as not Canonicall as in old tyme Marcionistae Alogiani Theodosiani as witnesseth Epiphan Lib. 2. Heres 51. did And Erasmus Lutherus Brentius and Kemnitius doe The Author of the Commentary vpon this booke bearing the name of S. Ambrose saith that He curses Heretikes that vsed to add somwhat of their own that was false and to take away other things that were contrary to their Heresyes But God forbid we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawfull Pastours since S. John himself as long as he lived was a Living Rule or Iudg for matters of Faith besides the word written in the Apocalyps or in other Canonicall scripture and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith Yea S. John after the sayd curse adds two verses more and Cornel. a Lapide Quest Proaemialib in Apocalypsim saith it is cleare that S. John wrote the Apocalyps before he wrote the Gospell For this he wrote being retourned from his banishmeÌ„t of Patmos where he wrote the Apocalyps as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script Ecclesiast and Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 24.
and S. Austine and Bede Proaemio in Evangelium S. Ioannis Kemnitius also Exam. Pag. 202. confesses that S. John wrote his Gospell after the Apocalyps And Cornel. a Lapide Proaem in Epist 1. S. Joannis speaking of S. Johns three Epistles sayth It seemes that he wrote them about the same tyme that he wrote the Gospell By which account they were written after the Apocalyps Therfor that curse in the Apocalyps cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude all other writings after it 66. But the chiefest place which Protestants are wont to alledg for the sufficiency of scripture alone is that of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3. V. 16.17 All scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke I answer First Speaking in rigour Profitable Necessary sufficient are things both different and separable A thing may be profitable and not necessary and a thing may be both profitable and necessary for some effect and yet not sufficient alone to produce it Every line in Gods word is profitable but not every line is either necessary or sufficient Our question is whether scripture alone be sufficient The text alledged saith only that it is profitable but saith not that it is either necessary or sufficient Therfor if we consider this place alone Faith may be conceyved without any scripture because scripture heer is not sayd to be necessary and cannot be conceyved by scripture alone because scripture is not sayd to be sufficient And then the argument comes to be retorted in this manner That which is no more than profitable is neither necessary nor sufficient but in the text alledged which Protestants bring as sufficient to proue the sufficiency of scripture scripture is only sayd to be profitable Therfor it is neither necessary nor sufficient 67. Secondly The words precedent to this text are these but thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thine infancie thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith which is in Christ Jesus By which words it appeares that the scripture of which S. Paul speakes is the Old testament which alone Timothy from his infancy had knowen and which could instruct him to salvation And therfor if this Objection be good the Old testament taken alone wil be sufficient for salvation and if it be a good consequence scripture is profitable to instruct therfor it is necessary and sufficient the Old testament which could instruct Timothy to salvation must be necessary and sufficient even for these tymes or if they were sufficient for those but not for these our tymes and that it be cleare that S. Paul spoke of those tymes and only of the Old testament as is confessed by Henoch Clapham Aretius Zwinglius Hooker and Ochinus as may be seene triple Cord. Chap. 7. Sect 5. with what conscience can they apply that text to vs as if the scripture of which that text speakes did signify the scriptures both of the Old and New testament Nay seing S. Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy about forry yeares before the Canon of scripture was perfited and that Protestants affirme that a living Iudg was necessary till the Canon was complete it followes that the text whith they alledg cannot signify that at that tyme the scripture alone was either necessary because there was then a living Iudg which could determine all Controversyes or sufficient because the Canon was not finished And therfor although it were granted that the Old Testament which was perfited had alone beene evident in all necessary poynts and therby sufficient for the Jewes yet the scripture of the New Testament being not perfited when S. Paul wrote these words it doth not follow that they can signify their sufficiency for Christians As Hooker Eccles Polit. First Booke N. 14. Pag. 43. sayth When the Apostle affirmed vnto Timo thy that the Old was able to make him wise to salvation 2. Timoth. 3.15 it was not his meaning that the Old alone can do this vnto vs which liue sithence the publication of the New Mark how this great man amongst Protestants affirmes that S. Paul speaks only of the Old scripture and that this alone is not sufficient for Christians which he proves because the Apostle sayth that those scriptures were able to make Timothy wise through the Faith which is in Christ V. 15. And this appeares also by the words of S. Paul saying to Timothy in the same Chapter V. 10. But thou hast attayned to my doctrine institution c. And afterward But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned That is of S. Paul his Maister Where we see that S. Paul did not send his scholler to Scripture alone but to his owne Institution Doctrine and interpretation and things committed to him by word of mouth or to scripture taken togeather with an infallible Living Iudg and so the Objection proves what we teach and overthrowes the doctrine of Protestants 68. Thirdly Protestants must shew that all things necessary are evidently contayned in scripture and this they must proue by some evident Text. For if it be not evident the matter will still remayne vncertayne But this Text on which they chiefly rely is not evident Therfor it is not sufficient to proue that which they intend and vpon which the whole Fabricke of their Faith depends The minor That this Text is not evident is evidently proved because it is impossible to shew evidently that profitable in this Text signifyes necessary or if that were freely granted it will remayne more than impossble to proue that profitable or necessary must in this Text signify sufficient For by what Grammer Logick or Divinity can any dreame this to be feceable The like I say of the words All scripture which they interpret not to signify every part or Book of Scripture but the whole body of Canonicall scripture taken togeather wheras Bellarm. de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 10. saith truly In the judgment of all that vnderstand latin that which is sayd of all scripture inspired of God is of sayd every booke which is inspired of God Beside the Apostle by this Vniversall proposition that all scripture is inspired by God proves that every particular scripture is profitable and that the scripture of the Old Testament which Timothy had knowen from his infancy was profitable to instruct him to salvation And therfor as every part of scripture is inspired so also is it profitable And this is more cleare according to the Protestant Englsh Translation Anno 1611. and 1622. and Greeke Text All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine c Where we see that of the same thing or subject and by the same word scripture it is sayd
an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding to see the Scripture Wherby it still appeares that not our vnderstanding alone but it with some other Helpe not produced by the Scripture must be compared to our corporall Eye The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost and therfore our vnderstanding with that light is the Eye not produced by the Scripture but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture And lastly you who teach that we belieue for the Authority of the Church must say that the eye wherby we see Scripture is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church Which Tradition therfore must be knowne and believed before we belieue Scripture and not be produced by Scripture 12. Wheras you say Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters contradictions but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible you speake wickedly and ignorantly We haue heard Dr. Taylor in his Liberty c § 10. N. 16. confessing that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And it is certaine that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity to any learned Philosopher containess farr greater dissiculty than any that can be objected against Transubstantiation And yourselfe vpon a certaine occasion could say to some Protestants Either deny the Trinity or admitt Transubstantiation and it was answered we will rather admitt this than deny that And with good reason For if we respect humane discourse there are as I sayd more difficult objections against that Mystery than against this And if we regard Revelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence and Transubstantiation than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity And if regard were to be had of Heretikes more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity than of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of naturall Reason taking hold of the present tyme are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith The other part of your Affirmation That jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible is extreme bold seing so many great learned men hold the first and no man the latter being betweene them as great difference as betweene Est Est and Fuit non fuit But I feare you do not vnderstand what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing or jam factum facere which signifyes only that the same thing is and is wheras every body knowes that factum infectum facere is to say That which was was not A manifest Contradiction Yet withall I must add that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church doth necessarily depend on that Question Whether it be impossible jam factum facere But enough of this least others haue occasion to say of me as you say truly of yourselfe in the close of this N. 48. I digress 13. I know not well what to make of your long and distracted discourse N. 49. we do not deny but that Protestants and other Heretikes may assent to some Mystery of Faith by a humane opinion and perswasion but that assent of theirs is not true Divine supernaturall Faith God not giving his particular Grace for believing one Article of Faith to him who denyes another equally proposed as revealed by God wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed Vnlearned Catholikes may exercise a true Act of Faith because indeed their assent comes to rely vpon a firme ground that is Divine Revelation propounded by an infallible meanes Gods Church wheras Heretikes haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith as hath beene shewed in severall occasions 14. For gaining tyme and saving vnnecessary paines I had omitted to take notice of your N. 51.52 vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much that whosoever will reade aÌ„d compare the words of Ch Ma. with your Answer shall find that he speakes clearly and that you do so involue and obscure and alter what he spoke plainly that I know not what to make of your words He tells you that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ as yourself grant and to say as you doe that the Church or Tradition of the Church is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men for ought I can judge is repugnant to Reason and Christianity For what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ which cannot be knowne except by some supernaturall Arguments as Miracles Sanctity Scripture Revelation c. 15. I do not vnderstand these your words N. 52. addressed to C. Mâ— That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canenâ—all and need no proofe of its owne being so you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum constat I pray you where did Ch Ma say that there is any part of Scripture which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide even by this Argument that otherwise we cannot be assured what Booke and parts of Scripture are Canonicall And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious are not Protestants wont to proue that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall is not conforme to other parts of Scripture and therfore cannot be Canonicall Do not yourselfe say N. 27. The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture may be decided negatively out of Scripture by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall And may we not proue affirmatively for example that those Texts of the old Testament which are cited in the New are Canonicall because they are cited for such in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall I beseech you to what purpose or vpon what occasion given do you N. 51. vtter these words As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all sciences Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences Were all one Charity Maintayned said if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first and most know ne in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles he supposes that which is in Question whether there be not some Principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
given to his Church the Gift of interpretation and I suppose Protestants will not say that the spirit of God the Grace of God and the Gift of interpretation given by God is necessary only for things not necessary and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces which yet we might doe if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say Apolog. part 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. That which is questioned is whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation are so very plaine that the most vnlearned believers by the reading therof may be instructed to piety and heretiques though not learned may clearly enough be confuted by them aÌ„d he holds the affirmatiue part And so ProtestaÌ„ts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace they must yeald that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner 54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person as we gather from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor 12. To one is giueÌ„ by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledg to another interpretation of languages to another prophecy c which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all in so much as Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Fol 63. teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all no more then is the gift of healing and miracles aÌ„d therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church not in any private person Therfor the Scripture is not so evident that we can be sure of the meaning therof by the interpretation of any but of the Church 55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth in this manner Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn Ioan 1 Cap 4. V. 1. warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit before they can beleeue it which meanes with them must be only Scripture and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture before they can make vse of that spirit by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit and so this spirit shal be necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit Therfore this spirit is necessary and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit and Scripture necessary and not necesssary for trying this spirit which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture And in a word the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit and the finall conclusion will be that the same thing must depend on it selfe the spirit on spirit Scripture on Scripture and so both of them must exist both before and after themselves Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle except by having recourse to Gods visible Church whose spirit needs no triall of men since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit by obliging all to obey Her voyce and to receyue even Scripture it self from Her Authority and Testimony 56. Ninthly I now vrge more in particular that which heretofore I touched in generall that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture declaring any command that we must haue recourse to Scripture alone for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith and yet if the End which is Faith be necessary the only Meanes that is Scripture to attayne that End must also be necessary nor can they produce any evident Text proving that from Scripture alone we can learne all points necessary to be believed 57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion wil be to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg and to shew how little they make to their purpose They produce these words Deut 4. V. 2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you Search the Scriptures Ioan 5.39 these things are written that yee may beleeue Ioan 20.31 And that of the Beraeans dayly searching the scriptures Act 17. V. 11. we haue the Propheticall word more sure 2. Pet. 1.19 All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke 2. Timoth 3.16 58. Now these Texts are so farr from proving evidently what is intended that it is evident that neither these nor any other can be alledged to proue that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone The reason is because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church as Moyses the Prophets and writers of Canocall scripture nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles and preachers of the Gospell Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone Nay out of this ground I further infer that seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides they had no obligation at all to consult scripture and much less scripture alone and if they had no such obligation no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme that they were so obliged and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling Pag 116. N. 159. that God requires of vs vnder payne of danatioÌ„ only to belieue the verityes therin in scripture contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are coÌ„taynâ—d By which assertion he doth not only disoblige meÌ„ from having recourse to scripture but also froÌ„ believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof caÌ„ be learned by other meanes as they might while those visible guides were living Therfor no text caÌ„ be brought to proue that men were or are obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number 59. But beside this there is another fundamentall
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable 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 continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
watchfull and vnerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may vndoubtedly receyue it sincere and pure you answer Very true and Pag 69. N. 46. to His saying That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority you answer expressly that he nâ—ed not proue it for no wise man denyes it And Pag 62. N. 25. you confess that we belieue not the bookes of scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For say you other bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it All which acknowledgments of yours make good what Cha Ma sayd that no writing alone can propose itself to be Authenticall and much less infallible and divine or can keep and preserue it self from corruption Seing then you grant that no writing alone can performe these things it followes that scripture cannot do them Or if any one writing can do so I hope you and Protestants who pretend so much to reverence scripture will not hold it any great crime in Cha Ma to haue sayd that if any writing alone were capable of these propertyes to proue conserue and interpret it self we would acknowledg scripture to be endued with them 182. But here Pag 55. N. 8. you make an Objection against Cha Ma in these words You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God I answer First There is no absolute necessity of this For God might giue it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly That it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so vnto vs. And thus though a writing could not be proved to vs to be a perfect rule of Faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a booke but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and containe all the materiall Objects all the particular Articles of our Faith without any dependance vpon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth contayne the Rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirme against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the booke called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertion when they are speken will belieue them never a whitt the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants doe contaynes all the materiall Objects of Faith is a compleat and totall and not only an imperfect and partiall Rule 183. I answer to your Objection and to your Answer that wheras you say to Cha Ma you will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it miâ—st be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God If you had cited his words aright you could not haue sayd you will say that although a writing be never so perfect c For every one would haue seene that he had sayd it already But you had reason to dissemble those words which were both evidently true and did clearly by way of anticipation confute what you say now that a writing alone may haue all propertyes necessary to a perfect Rule of Faith of which none can be more essentially necessary then that such a writing be believed to be infallible and that it can conserue itself pure and incorrupt which two qualityes yourself grant that no writing can haue as hath been shewed out of your owne words though now in your First Answer you either contradict them and yourself or els speake wholly impertinently to the purpose in saying there is no absolute necessity that a writing be beholding to Tradition to giue it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God For God might if he thought good giue it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles Good Sr. Reflect that the Question is whether any writing alone can giue to it self this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God and remember your owne words which I cited aboue out of your Pag 69. N. 46. that we need not proue that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority For no wise man denyes it You must therfor vnless you will contradict yourself grant that no writing alone is sufficient for such an effect and if God should doe it by Miracles it were not done by a writing alone and so it makes not for our present purpose But you will say in that case it should not be done by Tradition I reply that seing de facto God vseth no such Miracles as we did suppose as a thing evident by experience and which your self doe also suppose and therforteach every where that we can know by Tradition only that Scripture is the word of God and even here N. 8. in this Objection which we answer you say expressly Nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a Booke but only by Tradition which is a thing credible in it self Which according to you were not true if de facto God did give it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles It followeth that as things stand though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to tradition to giue it this Testimony that it is the word of God otherwise why do you teach that by Tradition alone we know Scripture to be the word of God Besides if you will fly to Gods Omnipotent Povver in vvorking Miracles for excluding the necessity of Tradition and a Living Judge you may ease men of all dispute about Scripture or necessity therof seing God can direct every man vvithout Scripture by perpetuall Miracles and make all as infallible in their Thoughts as the Apostles vvere in their words and writings We ought therfor to speake of things as they are and according to their natures and the way which God hath set downe without recourse to a meere possibility of Miracles against Experience teaching that He workes not such imaginary wonders Wherby I come now to proue that it is not only impossible for any writing alone to propose or proue and conserue it self but also to interpret its owne meaning because as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Chap 2. N. 3. It must be as all writings are deafe dumbe inanimate and being alwayes the same cannot declare it self any one tyme or vpon any occasion more
vnless we belieue it finally and for itself divers verityes contained in scripture shall not be materiall objects of our Faith and in particular all those of which S. John speakes Cap 20. V. 30.31 Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Booke And these are written that you may belieue that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Those Miracles then were written not for themselves but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth Jesus is Christ the Son of God and even the belief of this Truth is referred to a further end that believing you may haue life in his name And 1. Pet. 1.9 we read more vniversally that the end of our Faith is the salvation of our soules Besides this Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. 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 Nay is it not apparent that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture 4. Sir Are you a Christian of any profession If you be then it must be manifest to all the world that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture Therfor scripture is one part or Object of your belief and this as you profess vnder paine of damnation and consequently it is not only an object but a necessary object to be believed and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must doe so that is belieue scripture seing you can haue no reason to in Christ but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture If then you teach as you doe that one is not bound to belieue Scripture but may reject it you must grant that by the same reason he may not belieue yea may reject Christ himself And now heare what you say Pag 116. N. 159. If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely and liue according to it such a man though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinyon is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vnderstanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved Therfor men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had beene proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned In some of these words you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting For not so much seemes to signify that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree but this very mincing of things shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify we must say that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili For if this truth scripture is the word of God be revealed it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith then the verityes contayned in it If it be not revealed it is not only not so much but not at all an object of Faith But your other words neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by them but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved do either directly signify that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith nor a thing revealed by God or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine or rather blasphemy that a truth revealed by God may be rejected which you cōfess is to giue God the ly And that finally this is your opinion scripture is not a materiall object of Faith appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117. Where you say This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submitt to better judgment For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your N. 159. Neither can you avoide this absurdity by saying one may reject scripture if it be not sufficiently propounded For you put the very case that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them saying God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned and yet it is a thing granted by all and evident of it self that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture or any other verityes vnless they be sufficiently proposed and therfor if you will make good the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof and not contradict yourself you must confess that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof but may reject it although it be sufficiently proposed yea it will also follow that the contents therof may be rejected the first and last and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word For they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture if first they be perswaded that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self from which alone they can come to know any such obligation And so protestant ministers
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
which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
excuse vs. If then you will stand to your owne doctrine you cannot deny but at one tyme that may consist with salvation which at another tyme is not compatible therwith The Church of God hath defined what Bookes be Canonicall and this Definition all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue and obey And even by this we may learne the necessity of acknowledging a Living Judg. All Books which are truly Canonicall were proposed and receyved by Crihstians After ward the knovvledg of some Bookes and some truths began to be obscured or doubted of or denyed by some and perhaps not by a few and those of great authority if we respect either learning or other endowments qualityes and abilityes vnder the degree of infallibility as we see there wanted not in the Apostles tyme some who were zealous for the observation of the Mosaicall Law and as these could not haue bene confuted convinced and quieted but by the infallibility of the first Councell held in Jerusalem so after some Bookes of scripture come once to be Questioned it is impossible to bring men backe to an vnanimous or any well grounded reception and certainty of them except by some authority acknowledged to be infallible which if we deny those Books which are receyved by many or most may as I sayd be doubted of even by those many and they which were receyved by few may in tyme gaine number and authority and so all things concerning scripture must be still ebbing and flowing and sloating in irremediable and endless vncertainty of admitting and rejecting the Canonicall Books And what connection or tye or threed can we haue to find out the Antiquity and truth of scripture except by such a Guide 51. And here I may answer an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 3. N. 12. which you relate Pag 141.142 N. 28.29 Some Bookes which were not alwayes knowen to be Canonicall haue bâ—ne afterward receyved for such but never any one Booke or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibâ—y assisted by the Holy Ghost never to propose as Dâ—vine Truths any thing not revealed by God! These words that you may with more ease impugne you thinke fit to cite imperfectly For where Cha Ma sayd never any one Booke or syllable desined by the Church was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall you leaue out by the Church which words yield a plaine Answer to your Objection or any that can be made Thus then you say Toneâ—ing the first sâ—rt if they were not commended to the Church by the Apoâ—â—â—es as Canonicall seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelation how can it be â—n Article of Faith to belicue them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall low then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonicall Scripture to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterward as it were by the Law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalbiess vnto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the Poynt was sufficiently discussed and therfore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the Number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable 52. Answer All Canonicall Bookes were commeÌ„ded to the Church by the Apostles for such though not necessarily to all Churches at the same instant and we pretend to no new Revelations And for your demand how then is the Church an infallible keeper of Scripture if some Bookes haue bene lost and others lost for a long tyme their being Canonicall or at least the necessity of being so esteemed I answer Your Argument is of no force against vs Catholiques who belieue an alwayes Living Guide the Church of God by which we shall infallibly be directed in all Points belonging to Faith and Religion to the worldes end as occasion shall require yea we bring this for a Demonstration that the Church must be infallible and Judg of Controversyes There was no scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy scripture was only among the people of IsraeÌ„l and yet there were Gentils in those dayes indued with Divine Faith as appeareth in Job and his friends The Church also of our Saviour Christ was before the scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively and vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and as men could be saved in those tymes without scripture so afterward also vpon condition that we haue a Living Guide and be ready to receiue scripture when it shall be proposed to vs by that Guide But your Objection vrges most against your brethren and yourself who acknowledg no other Rule of Faith but scripture alone and yet teach that the duty of the Church is to keepe scripture which being now your only Rule and necessary for Faith and salvation how doth she discharge her duty if she hath suffered some Bookes to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed Especially seing you teach against other Protestants that we receyue scripture from the Authority of the Church alone and therfor if she may faile either by proposing false scriptures or in conserving the true ones Protestants want all meanes of salvation Neither can you answer that it belongs to Gods Providence not to permit scripture to be wholly lost since it is necessary to salvation For you must remeber your owne Doctrinem that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men in punishment of their sins and then why may he not permit either true scriptures to be lost or false ones to be obtruded for true in punishment of sin and particularly of the excessiue pride of those who preferr their judgment before the Decrees of Gods church deny her Authority allow no Rule but scripture interpreted by themselves alone that so their pride against the Church and the abuse of true scripture may be justly punished by subtraction of true or obtrusion of false Bookes Beside God in his holy Providence works by second causes or Meanes If then he permit some scriptures to be lost and yet his Will be that there remaine a way open to Heaven he will not faile to do
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
haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Traditiō But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō that is they must either renoūce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant 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 one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
conforme to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Neither can you answer that your Arguments proceed only against the ground we goe on that intention of the Minister is necessary to the validity of Sacraments For if indeed it be not necessary then you must grant that those vncertaintyes which you exaggerate against our Baptisme Ordination c are but imaginary feares as yourself say Pag 358. That some mens perswasion that there is no such thing as an indeleble Character hinders them not from having it if there be any such thing no more than a mans perswasion that be has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to haue taken it if he has Though by your leaue this instance of Physick c is not convincing because they who deny an indeleble Character may perhaps out of an obstinate loue to their Heresy and hatred against our Doctrine resolve and intend rather not to receiue the Sacrament than to admit any thought that there is such a thing as a Character which you call a creature of our owne making a fancy of our oâ—ne Imagination and then really they receaue neither Character nor Sacrament and so if intention be not necessary the want of it cannot possibly make any Sacrament invalide If it be necessary you haue destroyed your owne Hierarchy while you impugne ours vpon this ground that we hold the intention of the Minister to be necessary Nay seing not only all Catholikes but some learned Protestants also teach intention to be necessary at least you cannot be sure that it is not so and then againe you must either renounce your owne Objections or vndermine and make doubtfull your Hierarchy Which you must do also in another respect For though you take our Catholique Doctrine about the necessity of intention as one ground of vncertainty for the validity of our SacrameÌ„ts yet you mention other Points which are common to vs and Protestants as that determinate Matter and Forme are essentiall to Sacraments and your English Church in particular in the Administration of Baptisme expressly saith If they which bring the infants to the Church do make such vncertaine answers to the Priests questions as that it cannot appeare that the child was baptized with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which are essentiall parts of Baptisme then let the Priest baptise it in Forme aboue writteâ— concerning Publike Baptisme c And Pag 76. N. 64. You say To be certaine that one is a Priest he must know first that he was baptized with due Matter 2. With the due Forme of words which he cannoâ— know vnless he were both present and attentiue And N. 65. He must vndertake to know that the Bishop which ordayned him Prtest ordayned him compleatly with due Matter and Forme And N. 60. He must vndertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himself And N. 67. He must protend to know the same of him that made him Priest even vntill he comes to the very fountaâ—ne of Priesthoed For take any one in the whole traine and Su cession of Ordainers and suppâ—se him by reason of any defect only a supposed and not a true Priest then according to your Doctrine and according to the Doctrine of Protestants also if the defect fall vpon the Matter or Forme he could not giue a true but only a supposed Priesthood and they that receyve it of him and againe they that derive it from them can giue no better than they receyved receyving nothing but a name and shadow can give nothing but a name and shadow and so from age to age from generation to generation being equivocall Fathers beget only equivocall Sons Thus you And it is Gods just judgmeÌ„t that the certainty aÌ„d validity of ProtestaÌ„ts OrdinatioÌ„s aÌ„d their whole Hierarchy of Bishops should be made questionable seing they could endure the publishing of your Booke wherin the certainty of Christian Faith is denyed 31. But now to say somthing by this occasion concerning the Intention in administration of Sacraments whatsoever you are pleased to say yet in true judgment there is less danger of any defect in that behalf than in any other for example of Matter or Forme which may be vitiated both by the malice of the Minister and also against his will wheras a due Intention is wholly in his owne power and will and as I may say costs him nothing and we suppose him to be a man not a Divell delighting in the damnation of Soules without any self interest or if in your Charity you will suppose him to be so full of malice it is easy for him to vitiate the Forme For seing the validity of the Sacrament doth not oblige him to speake with a voice loud and audible to others he may pretend to speak the forme secretly and yet either say nothing at all and so omit the Forme or els say somthing els or if he pronounce most of the words audibly he may with an vnder-voyce interpose some words which will destroy the Forme as if for example he say openly I Baptize the and secretly put in this word Not in the Name of the Father c And this he may be induced to doe by your doctrine that Intention is not necessary and so the want of it will not invalidate the Sacrament and therfoâ— to be sure of some defect to be committed in that which is essentially necesary even in the opinion of Protestants he will procure to corrupt the matter oâ— forme or both 32. Besides as I began to say aboue some chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Intention in the Ministers of Sacraments Pag 326. N. 3. you stile Mr. Hooker a Protestant Divine of great Authority and no way singular in his opinions and yet this very man who you say is not singular in his Opinions in his sift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect 58. sayth That in as much as Sacraments are Actions religious and mysticall which nature they haue not vnless they proceed from a serious meaning and what every mans private mynd is as we cannot know so neither are we bound to examine therfor alwayes in these cases the knowne inof the Church generally doth suffice and where the contrary is not manifest we may presume that he which outwardly doth the worke hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God Consider how this your Divine of great Authority affirmes that Sacraments cannot be so much as religious and mysticall actions which are Attributes essentiall to Sacraments vnless they proceede from a serious meaning and that this meaning hath noe difficulty seing it suffices that one intend to exercise that Action as Christians are wont to doe which intention we may in a manner say a man cannot chuse but haue For though he were a Pagan yet if he intended to do what Christians are wont to doe in that particular action it were sufficient Covell also in
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
and yet not to haue beene inspired by God himselfe against such men there were no disputing out of the Bible In which words you confess that one cannot gather that a writing is inspired by God even though he did belieue that the contents therof were all true You make him also contradict yourselfe who resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches aÌ„d C Ma specifies not the present Church but saith oÌ„ly that Hooker acknowledged that we belieue Scripture for the Authority of the Church He must also contradict himselfe who I suppose liking not the Puritans privat spirit and proving that it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Pag 42. N. 7. citing the place of Hooker leaves nothing for our motiue to belieue it except the Church Yet no man denyes but what we first belieue for the Authority of the Church may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason as Hooker saith The former inducement the Authority of Gods Church prevailing somwhat with vs before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason And yourselfe in this Chapter N. 47. explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I haue declared And therfore consider whether you do well in relating Mookers words to leaue out these words which are immediatly joyned to those which you cite If I belieue the Gospell yet is reason of singular vse for that it confirmeth me in this my beliefe the more Is this to say that naturall reason as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church in which sense we now speake of it is the last thing into which our beliefe of Scripture is resolved seing such a confirmation by Reason comes after we haue believed You say that when Hooker saith When we know the whole Church of God hath that oâ—inion of the Scripture c the Church he speakes of seenes to be that particular Church wherin a man is bredd where I put you in mynd of what you sayd in another place that A Church signifyes a particular Church and The Church as Hooker speakes signifyes the vniversall How then do you say That by The Church he signifies a particular Church Or how is the Distinction of A and The Church such as you would haue men belieue But this I let passe and aske you what finally you will haue Hookers opinion to be concerning the meanes for which we belieue with certainty Scripture to be the word of God The private Spirit You know he was an Anti-Calvinist and the private spirit could not sute with his genius Naturall Reason That is evidently against reason as we haue shewed and you grant And when he speakes most of reason he speakes of infidells or Atheists calling in question the authority of Scripture who may be perswaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine c So there remaines only the Authority of the Church if you will haue him to say anything Dr Covell in his defence of Hookers Bookes Art 4. Pag 31. saith clearly Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue sayd as none of them doe to affirme that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by vs for the Authority of the Church These words of Covell were cited by Cha Ma N. 26. but it seemes you would take no notice of them and who could better vnderstand Hookers mynd than this his Defendant By the way we may obserue how hard it is to agree about the sense of holy Scripture which is more sublime than humane Writings if we cannot agree about the meaning of men 2. And by this occasion I must turne backe to your N. 11. where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintayned and giue them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense and words You speake thus You in saying here that scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may bo called in some sense a Iudge though not abone yet to speake propâ—â—ly as men should speake when they write of Controversyes in Religion the scripture is not a Iudge of CoÌ„troversyes but a rule only aÌ„d the only rule for Christians to iudge theÌ„ by But in this imputation you haue no reason at all to interpret Charity Maintayned as you doe For He in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes tooke only the contradictory of that which even in this place you affirme Protestants to belieue Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes and therfore it was necessary for Him to declare his mynd by the contradictory proposition that Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversyes which is very true though iâ— be not a judge of Controversyes either by itselfe alone or in any other sense and you know he doth expressly and purposely and largely proue that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever to be a Judge and therfore when you say men should speake properly when they write of Controversyes in Religion and yet confess that Protestants have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes and that to speake properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes you taxe Protestants only and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintaynâ— 3. Here also I may speake a word to your N. 15. as belonging to interpretation You say To execute the letter of the Law according to rigour would be many tymes vnjust and therfore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it wherof in Religion there is no vse at all I pray you would it not be many tymes vnjust to execute the letter of the Scripture taken without a true and moderate interpretation And for this very caÌ„use there is great vse of a Judge and Authenticall interpreter otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother vpon some mistaken Text of Scripture that idolaters were to be taken out of the world subjects might rebell no warr would be judged lawfull no oathes to be taken in any case c And here I willingly take what you N. 17. giue me that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is sit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible This I take and inferr that you wholy enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible and therfore that we cannot inferr the Church to be infallible because we are commanded to heare Her not considering this difference which here your selfe giue betweene a Judge in Civill Controversyes and a Judge in Religion wherin such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belâ—â—ue to haue judged right Which are your owne words wheras in Civill matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not always to belieue it â—ust which are also your words 4. Neither will I omitt
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition doth he S. Irenaeus not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing els but the very same that is written Nothing but to belieâ—e in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge 51. Answer First this your Answer though it were never so true leaves Charity Maintayned in possession of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus against the Title of your Chapter Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes to witt that Tradition and therfore not only Scripture is such a Rule For dato non concesso that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible and guide vs by Tradition as by Gods vnwritten Word You teach here N. 126. That all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells And yet you say That they which had â—ll the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes and be testifyed by diverse witnesses So say I it had not beene superfluous but very profitable that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture and by the infallible Tradition of the Church which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written For as Scripture was not superfluous though it found another infallible Rule before it which also even according to Protestants remained for some tyme with it namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited so Tradition neither was nor is superfluous though there be another infallible Rule Scripture with it 52. Secondly When you say That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of is nothing els but the very same what is written nothing but to belieue in Christ to which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it you should add and vnderstand it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge I must answer as you N. 142. speake to Charity Maintayned I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what you meane by believing Only in generall that he is the Messias and that without believing him none can be saved Or else do you vnderstand by believing in Christ all that hath beene taught by him If you meane the first only you say nothing to the purpose because other Articles are necessarily to be believed beside that of Christs being the Messias If you meane the second that is all Points taught by our Saviour and necessary to be believed as you N. 159. say S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias as even there you declare that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion wholly and entirely that is the matter of the Gospell you know we deny that for all such truths Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide and to take the contrary without proofe is to begg the question Nay even for that of believing in Christ I wonder you would say that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide in the Principles and proceedings of Protestants seing you know that He knowes and the whole world knowes how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ some believing him to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father Others denying it Some saying he satisfyed for our sins others denying it as you know the Socinians doe So that take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ will terminate in the meere Name of Christ and the Title of Saviour with endless contentions about the Thing signifyed by that Name and Title Put then all your Assertions togeather the strength of them will end in this contradiction that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word of God yea though he doubt or reject it being proposed by other Parts of the Church as you expressly say in the same N. 159. 53. But you say S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say if God had not given vs the light of the Sun we must haue made vse of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must haue felt out our way If we had no leggs we must haue vsed crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we haue the Sun we need no candles While we haue our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying if we had had no Scripture we must haue followed Tradition and they that haue none do well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that haue Scripture and belicue it Tradition is vnnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition 54. Answer You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus and moue others to vndestand them as you please if you will first suppose your owne doctrine to be true that is if to begg the question may passe for a good Rule to interpret Authors If I say you suppose or take as granted that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation you may compare it to the Sun to Eyes to leggs and the Church to Candles to feeling out our way to crutches yea if she might erre to the Synagogue of Satan and lastly to Nothing because indeed every errour in Faith destroyes Faith and Church But if you conceaue as you ought that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs that by Her Eyes or Testimony we belieue Scripture to be the word of God as yourselfe grant that by Her subsistence as I may say it hath beene conserved and subsists you will be forced to invert your similitudes and interpretation of S. Irenaeus and say do not his words import that if candles should faile the Sun will last and as the Prophet David saith Psalm 18. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum that is in manifestatione Ecclesiam saith S. Austine If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way as the disagreements of Protestants shew they cannot we may see by the eyes of the Church by which we did first see Scripture itselfe and then do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import the direct contrary of that which you inferr That to them who haue Tradition as all they must haue who belieue Scripture
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
things indifferent that is neither commanded nor prohibited But as for the thing it self S. Austine never speaks of particular Churches as we haue heard him speak of the vniversall both in this place of which we treate and in other sentences alledged by Ch. Ma. in the saied N. 16. and the Promises of our Saviour were made to the vniversall Church Yea you confess that S. Austine speaking even in this place of those things which he dislikes saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church which words declare that the Scripture Generall Councells the Custome of the vniversall Church and consequently the Church of God can never be saied to approue any such presumptions as S. Austine calls them which he never saieth of particular Churches And therfore when you say that superstitions may in tyme take such deepe roote as to pass for vniversall customes of the Church you contradict S. Austine and that the world may see you doe it plainely and as I may say in actu signato and not only exercito but to his face you take his owne words Consuetudine vniversae Ecclesiae roboratum corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church and say that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austines tyme which circumstance of tyme is to be noted to shew how directly you contradict him prevailed so farre as to be corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and Authority not oily of an vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition And which is more in other places of your Booke you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition not only to S. Austines tyme but even to himself though both imputations be most false and it is strang that through your whole Book you do not so much as once offer any one proofe thereof And yet to shew how causelesly and intemperately you declaime against the Church of S. Austines tyme that you might discredit every Church of every Age and so of all Ages though Protestants commonly hold that the Church was pure in S. Austines tyme you confess he saieth they were not against Faith and only vnprofitable burdens But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem sanamque doctrinam he expresly declares that the truth is to be professed Yea even when there is question not whether a vaine thing be to be permitted but whether a good thing ought to be omitted he saieth Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat vt majora studiosoruÌ„ lucra sperand a sint quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda sine dubitatione faciend um est Now if you be so indiscretely zealous as to say that no inconvenient things are in any case to be tolerated not for feare to offend or for humane respects but for avoiding greater evill you impugne our Saviour and not his Church only who Matth. 13.29.30 forbids the servants to gather vp the cockle least perhaps gathering vp the cockle you may root vp the wheat also togeather with it Suffer both to grow vntill the harvest And you do very wickedly in comparing the observing this advise of our Blessed Saviour to that which He reprehended in the Scribes and Pharises for teaching and not only tolerating perforce vaine things as the washing of pots c Did not the Apostles tolerate for some tyme even after they had received the holy Ghost some Observances of the Mosaicall Law till they became to be deadly as if without them the law of Christ had not beene sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion And for that cause S. Paule saieth stand and be not holden in againe with the joake of servitude Galat. 5. V. 1. and therefore you do absurdly apply against the Church of Christ those words of the Apostle especially seing you confess that those foolish observances which S. Austine dislikes were not against Faith as he saieth expressly that it cannot be found quomodo contra Fidem sint and which is the maine point that they were never decreed by any generall Councell or practised or approved by the vniversall Church which is only our Question Yourself say Pag 301. N. 101. that S. Austine supposed that the publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is vnpolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true of their Communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And towards the end of the same number you say The Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Terâ—ullian variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Therefore you must either free the Church of that tyme from errour or the Donatists from Schisme I haue beene longer in answering this Objection in regard it containes hiddenly more Socinian venome against the Church than appeares at the first sight 58. And now it will be easy to answer your N. 48. wherin you speak thus to Charity Maintayned But you will say not with standing all this S. Austin here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against Faith or good life and so long you may rest securely vpon it What Do you now grant that S. Austine here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue c. Which is the very thing which even now you objected against Cha Ma as if S. Austine had neither saied so not that it could be deduced from what he saied You goe forward and say Yea but S. Austine tells vs in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vaine superstitions and those vrged more severely than the commandements of God and whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeale to our Saviours words before cited and to the concent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it right we shall finde that the Church is not truly saied only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and a farre greater publiquely avowed and practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet do so I desire you to informe me 59. Answer you seeke to deceyue the ignorant by leading them into a misvnderstanding of the word tolerate as if it did signify a voluntary permission of a thing when it is in our power to hinder it where as the Church doth only tolerate abuses in that sense as our Saviour teaches that
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a
fault it was in yielding too much For indeed Protestants doe not agree even in that fundamentall point that Christ is our Saviour or in Faith in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world Seing I haue shewed in divers occasions that they differ toto genere in their explication and beliefe of those Articles and accordingly Morton teaches that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Sone of God and Saviour of the world as may be seene in Ch Ma Part. 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 103. and since the beliefe of those Articles is required to the consticuting of the very essence of a Church in the Lowest degree and they doe not agree in them it followes that they doe not agree in the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree As for Divine Precepts and Divine Promises which you say are clearly delivered in Scripture they belong to Agenda and not to Credenda according to your distinction and so men may agree in them and disagree in points of simple belief 38. Lastly If you had a minde to defend Protestants you should not alledg their agreement in such Points as they haue received from vs but in those wherin Luther and his fellowes forsooke the Faith of our Church with which all true Christian Churches did clearly agee and in those Protestants are so farre from agreement among themselves that in the chiefest matters divers of the most learned of them stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and vniversally it is most true that their agreement is only actuall and meerely accidentall in regard that they acknowledg no living infallible Judge of Controversyes to make them agree in case they should chance to doubt of those points wherin they casually agree and so still in actu primo they are in a disposition to disagree whereas Catholiques believing an infallible Judge are in a continuall disposition or a virtuall and potentiall agreement even in those things wherin particular persons may happen not to agree yea those many millions of Truths which you say are contayned in Scripture could not for ought Protestants know be so much as one if your doctrine were true that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith which men are obliged to belieue And yet such is your inconstancy and spirit of contradicting yourself you say heere 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 in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to believe the Scripture Sr. If all Christians consent in the belief of Scripture how is not Scripture believed And if it be believed how is it not a materiall object of our belief or the thing which we belieue Nay you say no man at this tyme can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue the Bookes of Scripture and so you declare that if Christ be a materiall object of our Faith the Scripture must also be such 39. But there remaines yet an other contradiction no less manifest and more strange than this which I now mentioned Heere you say expresly no man can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue Scripture and you proue this your Assertion because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture which proof to be of any force must suppose that there is alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall Reason Otherwise one might haue the same reason to belieue in Scripture which he hath to belieue in Christ and yet be obliged to belieue in Christ and not be obliged nor haue an equall necessity to belieue the Scripture vnder danger of damnation Is not all this cleare Now I beseech you remember what you write Pag. 116. N. 159. where you treate of this very matter that is of the belief of Scripture and of the belief of the contents thereof that is among other Points of our belief in Christ and you endeavour to proue that God requires of vs vnder pain of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherein they are contained Behold your Assertion contrary to that which we haue heard you say that the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture were not doubted of without danger of damnation But let vs see whether as you contradict yourself in your Assertions you doe not the same in the reason you giue for them You goe forward in the saied Pag. 116. N. 159. and say Not but that it were now very strang and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matters of these Bookes and not the Authority of the Bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should haue reason to feare he did not belieue that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief whereof there is an equall reason No Is there not alwaies an equall necessity for the beliefe of c. How then did you proue that men cannot without danger of damnation doubt of the Bookes of Scripture as he cannot doubt of Christ because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so that is belieue the Scripture 40. Yet this is not all that heere offers itself about your Contradictions You say we haue the same reason to belieue the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which we haue for our belief in Christ I suppose you meane vniversall Tradition for which you profess to receiue the Scripture How then were you obliged to belieue in Christ and teach that Christ is a materiall object of our Faith and yet that Scripture is not such an object If vniversall Tradition be sufficient to declare an Object to be revealed by God and the same vniversall Tr. dition deliver to vs Christ and Scripture it is a Contradiction to say the one is revealed and consequently is a materiall object of our Faith and not the other Or if one be revealed and not the other than you contradict your owne saying that there is the same reason for believing them both seing the one hath the Formall reason or Motiue of Faith namely divine Revelation which the other must want if you will needs deny it to be a Materiall Object of Faith And I hope to be revealed and not revealed are very different and not the same things or Reasons 41. In your N. 50. you fall Heavy vpon Cha. Ma. for saying
with in and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeedes Fabianus by Lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church If then the milder Protestants will pretend to be in the true Church they cannot be with those other who by teaching an heresy against the Article of the Church in our Creed put themselves out of the Church otherwise those milder Protestants should come to be both within and without the Church You tell vs that the saying of S. Cypriā hath no more to doe with our present businesse of proving it vnlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwayes visible then In nova fert animus But I am sure In nova fert animus agrees as fitly to your frequent changes of Religion as it is impertinently applyed against Ch Ma. Your last words That S. Cyprians words are by neither of the parts litigants esteemed any rule of Faith and therfor the vrging of them and such like authorityes serves only to make bookes great and Controversies endles shew what esteeme you haue of Antiquity and the holy Fathers how diffident you are of your cause if their authority might prevaile and how vnjustly you proceed in alledging against vs the authority of Fathers of whom you make so small and so ill account as to say the vrging of them serves only to make bookes great and which is worse controversies endles 13. For answer to your N. 45. I must still entreate the Reader to peruse N. 17. of Ch. Ma. and withall to remember what I haue proved heretofore that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church and not to leaue the Church externall communion being of the essence of the Church And therfor your example that a man may leaue any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet still remaine a member of the College is not to the purpose seing a fashion or custome of the Colledge may be meerely accidentall to the constituting one a member therof or if you suppose any custome to be of the essence and a Signum distinctivum of that Colledge from all other communities then the example makes against you for in that case to leaue that fashion or custome were to leaue the Colledge 14. Vpon this errour that externall communion in profession of Faith Liturgie Sacraments c is not essentiall to the Church is grounded all that you haue N. 47. Neither is C. Ma. deceaved in not distinguishing betweene a local ād morall forsaking any thing But he sayth and hath proved that externall communion being essentiall to the Church it is impossible that they can be of one Church who are divided in that communion but doe forsake one another morally and locally also refusing to be present at their publik worship of God nor doth he C. Ma. vse any pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any errour they hold or any vice they are subject to Because forsooth they cannot forfake themselves and vices and errours are things inherent in themselves For to turne your owne Instance against your selfe if vices and errours were essentiall to a man it were impossible to forsake them and not forsake ones selfe so vnion in externall communion being essentiall to the true Church which is one it is impossible to forsake her externall communion and not forsake her as it is impossible to forsake the company of Dr. Potter and keepe company with the Provost of Queens colledge which is the example of Ch. Ma. otherwise he should be with and not be with himselfe according to the forsayd words of S. Ciprian the Church being one cannot be within and without It is not therfor Charity Maintayned who distinguishes not between a locall and morall forsaking any thing but it is you who doe not distinguish between a reall physicall and a morall forsaking of a mans selfe as if one could not cease to be a member of the Church by heresy or Schisme because he cannot cease to be physically himselfe Thus your N. 48. is answered and as you are pleased to repeate here againe In nova fert animus so I not to be too bold with the Reader by a vaine repeating of the selfe same words may well add as fitly agreeing to you the witty saying of Tertullian adver valent Cap 12. Ovidivs metamorphoseis suas delevisset si hodie majorem cognovisset Certaine it is that your changes of religion ought in reason to be esteemed more strange and I am sure more vnreasonable then all the metamorphosies in Ovid. 15. Your N. 49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56 giue no occasion of matter to be particularly confuted Only to say to your N. 50. that it is certainly true that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholik Church if indeed their division be culpable and Schismaticall For in that case the innocent part only remaines a true member of the Catholick Church because if both remained vnited to the Catholike Church they should also be vnited among themselves Quae sunt vnita vni tertio sunt vnita interse And Potter Pag 76. saith Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequētly to forsake the whole How then doe you say it is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholick Church Seing to be divided Schismatically from any one member of the Church induces necessarily a division from the whole as the Doctour confesses As for your N. 55. wherin you say to Charity Maintayned the reason of this consequence which you say is so cleare truly I cannot possibly discerne But the consequence which Ch. Ma. makes N. 17. Pag 172. of which you speake seemes so cleare that I belieue every Body will see it if his words be set downe as they are delivered by him and not abbreviated and obscured by you Thus he sayth I obserue that according to Dr. Potter the selfe same Church which is the vniversall Church remaining the vniversall true Church of Christ may fall into errours and corruptions from whence it clearly followes that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retaine externall communion with the Catholick Church since the Church Catholick and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church What consequence can ther be more clear The Church Catholick and the Church corrupted is the same Church therfor it is impossible to forsake the externall communion of the Church corrupted and not forsake but retaine externall communion with the Church Catholick 16. To your N. 56 I will only say That you conceale the words of Ch. Ma. so to impugne them more freely His words are When Luther appeared ther were not two distinct visible true Catholick Churches holding contrary Doctrine and