not by testimony of the private spirit which faith he being private and secret is unfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument saith he whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonicall and what be not Luther saith This indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he believed the Gospell being moved by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulk teacheth that the Church hath judgement to discerne true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgement she hath not of her selfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you my not be ignorant from what Church you must receive Scriptures hear your first Patriarch Luther speaking against them who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these men build upon a weak foundation For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we have from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture 8 But now in deeds they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitins teacheth that the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not having sufficient Testimony of their authority and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these Bookes The same is taught by divers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleage why they leaue their Master and so many of his prime Schollers I knâ—w no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as hee was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receaved in Gods Church 9 What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easie to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture who doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Doe they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as Melito Asianus Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestanis will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserve to bee put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurres that is he hath no perfect sentence hee rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who saith further that the said book was not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the time of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomeus And further he saith that he doth not belieue all to haue been done as there is set downe And he reacheth the booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he delivers this generall censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this meanes the Bible was conserved If this were so the Books of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church upon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church 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 It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New Testament as they are commonly receaved we doe recieue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly recieued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it bee the greater or lesse number of voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controversie of Fact whether the number of those who reject or of those others who recieue such and such Scriptures bee greater Their Faith must alter according to yeares and daies When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe
of the New Testament they giue a farre different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther and divers principall Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselues it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10 Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by divine authoritie as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Wrâ—â— there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the blessed Trinitie c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trisâ—egistus Sybils Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter words it by that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voice by the voice it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being evident proportionate and connaturall to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum non apparentium an argument or conviction of things not evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should bee brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produced by the Sunne or Moone c. Or if one heare a voice and had never known the speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unlesse they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare unlesse I first both know the person who speakes and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceaved For there may be voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceaved by them as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or vioce proceeds unlesse first they know the person who speakeâ— ' or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirme any thing but onely to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleare that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot heare or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it selfe they can see that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonicall Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12 But let us be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet the similitude proues against themselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith or as D. Potter aboue cited saith to all that haue eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the believer as immediatly after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but
Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but a highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me thinks you should not denie but it may be a sufficient ground of faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall Motives 36 But by this Rule the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should thinke he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confesse that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partiall and a Iudge of evill thoughts 37 Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Iob and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamentall heresie He that condemnes him for saying the booke of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemnes him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The booke of Iob may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and haue been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damne all for Heretikes that say some books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be call'd in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselues Was the Prophesie of Ieremie the lesse Canonicall for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospell and S. Marke the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38 But leaving Luther you returne to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us that in the new testament by the above mentioned rule of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church divers books must be canoniz'd Not so For I may believe even those questioned bookes to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those books which were never questioned At least I have 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 such their doubting or deniall 39 You observe in the next place that our sixt Article specifying by name all the bookes of the Old Tstament shâ—ffles over these of the New with this generality All the books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receive and account them Canonicall And in this you phansy to your selfe a mystery of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal â— pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England doe testify and even proclaime to the World that by CoÌ„monly received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the paines to look in them and there you shall finde the bookes which the Church of England counts Apocryphall marked out and severed from the rest with this title in the begining The bookes called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what bookes only shee esteemes Apocryphall I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgement Canonicall 40 But if by Commonly received shee meant by the Church of Rome Then by the same reason must she receive divers books of the old Testament which she reiects 41 Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Bookes of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the bookes of the old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will doe as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our side you must doe so when we have no reason 42 The discourse following is but a vaine declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tryed by most voices but by the Iudgement and Testimony of the ancient Fathers and Churches 43 But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Bookes that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answere When they say of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean 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 time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive 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 44 But if to be commonly received passefor a good rule to know the Canon of the new Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you doe so it is out of principles which no man grants For who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been train'd up in Schooles of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference between these two We receive the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The bookes of the New Testament we receive for Canonicall as they are received by the Church of England 45 You demand upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against
Creed For this he affirmes only of such speculatiue divine veriries which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potters Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33 First the Questions touching the conditions to bee performed by us to obtaine remission of sinnes the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how farre obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead The cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34 Secondly the Question touching Fundamentalls is profitable but not fundamentall He that belieues all Fundamentals cannot bee damned for any errour in faith though he belieue more or lesse to bee fundamental then is so That also of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the new Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitiue Church untill I see better reason for the contrary then the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35 Thirdly These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those bookes of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the word of God that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect rule of faith consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so But not so necessary that every man woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know thē to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other points are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines aboue mentioned which were never pretended to haue place in the Creed There remaines one only point of all that Army you mustred together reducible to none of these heads that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the deniall of merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit mee thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold merit because we hold this point Then that we deny this point because we deny merit Besides when Protestants deny the doctrine of Merits you know right well for so they haue declared themselues a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well doing extendeth not is not truly beneficiall to God with our Saviour when they haue done all which they are commanded they haue done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to bee compared to the glory that shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himselfe Nay you must either grant their deniall of true Merit just reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equall unto and well worthy of eternall glory which is prepar'd for them As for the inconvenience which you so much feare That the deniall of Merit makes God a Giver only not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you feare where no feare is and that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternall glory make God a rewarder only not a giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternall life And that it is most false on the other side that the doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder In as much as their doctrine is That God giues not Heaven but to those which doe something for it and so his gift is also a Reward but withall that whatsoever they doe is due unto God before hand and worth nothing to God and worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods reward is still a Gift 36 Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honour and meanes of a Cardinall would you not not only in humility but in sincerity haue professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creatour nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactour sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations Besides the work you haue done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you haue or hope to haue deserved immortall happinesse I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinal's cap then a Crowne of immortall glory and with that Cardinall to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37 In the next Paragraph you beat the ayre again and fight manfully with your own shadow The point you should haue spoken to was this That there are some points of simple beliefe necessary to bee explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Insteed hereof you trouble your selfe in vain to demonstrate That many important points of faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your selfe take particular notice of his granting of it All this paines therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat neere it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more points of faith then there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed And that though all of the former sort are not contained in the Creed yet all of the latter sort may be As for your distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vaine and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so
that alwaies hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospell of Christ. The doctrine of your Church may like a snow-ball increase with rowling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Iesus so his Gospell is yesterday and to day and the same for ever 38 Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other commission then this Goe teach all nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a commission at large to teach what she pleases and call it the Gospell of Christ let her produce her Letters-patents from heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteeme it both great sacriledge in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kindes and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyne men to believe that there are or can be any other fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ then what Christ himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39 Ad § 16. 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach is only related by D. Potter p. 155. and not applauded though the truth is both the Man deserves as much applause as any man and his saying as much as any saying it being as great and as good a truth and as necessary for these miserable times as possibly can be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to unity of Communion there are but two waies that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of opinions which is among the severall Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion 40 Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unlesse that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unlesse it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Iudge of Controversies to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves What then remaines but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to ser a higher value upon these high points of faith and obedience wherein they agree then upon these matters of lesse moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectuall to joyne them in one Communion then their difference in other things of lesse moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those articles of faith wherein all consent A joynt worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawfull and a mutuall performance of all those works of charity which Christians own one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of then to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to heaven For why should men be more rigid then God Why should any errour exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternall salvation Now that Christians doe generally agree in all those points of doctrine which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Bookes of the Old and New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of God And it is so certain that in all these Bookes all necessary doctrines are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Bookes they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospell of Christ. For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospell of Christ would doe so great a work of God after such a negligent â—ashon Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamentall doctrine of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Mathew and S. Marke and S. Luke and S. Iohn as you doe of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines how have they complied with their own designe which was as the titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how have thy not deceived us in giving them such titles By the whole Gospell of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Iohn I believe every considering man will bee inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other very profitable things in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke And that S. Markes Gospell wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he saies Mathew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke the follwer of Paul compiled in a book the Gospell which was preached by him And afterwards Iohn residing in Asia in the Citty of Ephesus did himselfe also set forth a Gospell 41 In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended as you know who doe now adaies that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Marke and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme then confute their errour It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Marke Now you will
p. 122. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissensions of the Roman Church which he shewes against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to bee no lesse then ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuite of them to bee exceedingly uncharitable S. 6. p. 188. 189. 190. 191. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. Tenthly his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church which he proves very consonant to the Doctrine of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Lastly his discourse wherein hee shewes that it is unlawfull for the Church of after Ages to adde any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby hee proves that in the judgment of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the Old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223. 228. 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reasons best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospell did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them least otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plaine confession that you can say nothing FINIS GOod reader through the Authors necessary absence for some weekes while this Book was printing and by reason of an uncorrected Copy sent to the Presse some errors have escap'd notwithstanding the Printers sollicitous and extraordinary care and the Correctors most assiduous diligence which I would intreat thee to correct according to this following direction Pag. Lin. Err. Corr. 6. 1. To the first and second Adde § 21. Vlt. To the ninth to the ninteenth To the ninteenth To the ninth 64. 21. Principall prudentiall 67. 29. Canoniz'd discanoniz'd 73. In marg posuit potuit 108. 21. ouâ— one 134. 9. In for 136. 9. some some thing 146. 6. a truth truths 150. 19. she there 157. 13. vowed avowed 158. Peâ—â—lt best least 168. 11 causa pro non causâ— non causa pro causa 176. 3. Atheists Antithâ—sis ib. 11. dele with  180. Antepen government communion 193. 19. that the. 198. 33. continue the immortall the 218. 44. profession pâ—â—fection 220. Post 53. scribd Ad § 19. Iâ— 11. Faire Faâ—ce Ib. 33. instruct mistrust 221. 38. which is which is the Church 225. 27. nay now 293. 43. so farre from farre from so 351. 11. exception exposition 361. Vlt. Canons Canon 372. 17. Foundation Fundation of 393. 32. dele whether  402 44. of themselves in the issue Survey of Religion Init. a See this acknowledg'd by Bellar de Script Ecclesâ—in Philastriâ— by Petavius Animad in Epiph de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haeres Haer. 80 A generall consideration of D. Potters Answere Concerning my Reply Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder a Mat. 5. 19. * I mean the Divines of Doway whose profession we have in your Belgick Expurgatorius p. 12. in censura Bertrami in these words Seeing in other ancient Catholiques we tolerate extenuate excuse very many errors and devising some shift often deny theÌ„ and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries we see no reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity In the place above quoted This great diversity of opinions among you touching this matter if any maÌ„ doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Exposit. Theor quarti and T h. Waldensis Tom. 3. De Sacramentalibus doct 3. fol. 5. andhee shall bee fully satisfied that I haue done you no injury Quiâ— tulerit Gracchum c. a Pag. 11. b Ibid. c Pag. 4. Edit 1. d Pag. 20. e Pag. 81. g Sleidan l. 6. fol. 84. h See pag. 39. i Art 28. k Art 31. l S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezec. a Pag. 131. b In his first book of Eccles Policy Sect. 1 â— p. 68. c Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. d l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. et alibi e Advers Stapl. l. 2. c. 6. Pag. 270. Pag. 357. f Adversus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. g lib. de cap. Babyl tom 2. Wittemb f. 88. h In his answer to a couÌ„terfeit Catholique pag. 5. i Epist. cont Anabap. ad duos Parochos tom 2. Germ. Wittemb k Praefat. in epist. lac in edit Ieâ—ensi l In Euchirid pag. 63. m In examin Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. n Ibid. o Apud Euseb l. 4. hist. c. 26. p In Synop. q ln carm de genuinis Scripturis r lib. de servo arbitrio cont Etas tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. s In latinis sermonibus convivialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. t In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro editis Francosurt tit de libris veteris novi Test. fol. 379. u Ib. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. w Tit. de lib. Veâ— Nov. Test. x Fol. 380. y Pag. 141. z Heb. v. 1 a Pag. 141 b Cont. Adimantn c. 17. c l. 2. haeretic fab d lib. 6. cap. 10. e lib. 6. cap. 11. f Dist. Can. Sancta Româ—na h In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. i Pag. 234. k In Synopsi l Can. 47. m Cont. â—p Fundam c. 5. n Tom. 1. fol. 135. o Instit. c. 6. §. 11. p Instit c. 7. §. 12. q lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. r Tast. 1. Sect. 10. subd 4 joyned with tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd 2. s Lib. cont Zwingl deverit corp Christiin Euchar t In his answere unto M. Iohn Burges pag. 94. u Ibid. w In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastâ—call Pollicy Sect. 6. 26. x In his treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop y Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. z Lib. de util â—â—e cap. 14. a Tâ—m â— Wittemberg fol. 375. b In lib. de principiis Christian. dogm lib 6â— 13. c De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. d In his true differâ—nce part 2. e Tract 2. cap 1. Sect. 1. f Lib. 32. cont Faust. g Pag. 247 h De test anim cap. 5. Pag. 24. k Heb. 13. l Cant. 2. m 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. n Mat. 12. o Ioan. c. 10. p Lib. 5. c. 4. q In his defence of M. Hookers books art 4. p. â—1 r De unit Eccles c. 22. * Some answer so but he doth not a The first outward motive not the last
and Charity collect thus They only erre damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure doe not oppose what they knowe God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they doe Therefore they either doe not erre damnably or with charity we cannot say they doe so 13 Ad § 17. Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of Persons contrary in whatsoever point of beleife one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The consequence I acknowledge but wonder much what it should be that laies upon Protestants any necessity to doe so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith for this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damn'd that oppose any least point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contain'd in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first case in a man that beliues the Scripture to be the word of God is to giue God the lye To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sinne though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe and that for these Reasons First because the contrary beliefe may be touching a point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteem'd to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any point contain'd in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary beliefe as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary beliefe may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probabilitie capable of diverse senses and in such cases it is no marvell and sure no sinne if severall men goe severall waies Thirdly because the contrary beliefe may bee concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probabilitie bee alleaged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and upright hearts true lovers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to doe it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another some those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgements and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnancies Now in all such Questions one side or other which soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily belieue that they indeed maintaine it and haue great shew of reason to induce them to belieue so and therefore are not to be damn'd as men opposing that which they either knowe to be a truth delivered in Scripture or haue no probable Reason to belieue the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolv'd as men who endeavour to finde the Truth but fayle of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceiue impossible is very obvious easie 14 To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sinne to deny any one Truth containd'd in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knewe it to be so or haue no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15 To the second Whether there be in such deniall any distinction between Fundamētall not Fundamētall sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because these points either in themselues or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contain'd in Scripture to him that knowes them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16 To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alleage the Creed as containing all Fundamentall points of Faith as if believing it alone wee were at Libertie to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alleag'd to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more then a sufficient Summarie of those points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely and that onely of such which were meerely and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17 To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that of Persons contrary in beliefe one part only can bee saved I answer By no meanes For they may differ about points not contain'd in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alleadged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Haeresie and a selfe condemning obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter doe not take it ill that you believe your selves may be sav'd in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary hee may justly condemne you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you doe that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that meanes whereby the revealed truths of God are conveyed to our Vnderstanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves doe in fact give testimony while they possesse it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an externall Iudge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodoxe and Catholique sense Every single book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferre that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded least by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Bookes of the old and new Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of
from presuming upon the absolute puritie and perfection even of this best Translation that S. Hierome thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew fountain which himselfe testifies in his Book de Viris illustribus And to correct the vulgar version of the New Testament according to the truth of the Originall Greek amending many errors which had crept into it whether by the mistake of the Author or the negligence of the Transcribers which work he undertook performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome You constraine mee saith he to make a new work of an old that after the Copies of the Scriptures haue been dispersed through the whole world I should sit as it were an Arbitratour amongst them and because they vary among themselues should determine what are those things in them which consent with the Greek verity And after Therefore this present Preface promises the foure Gospels only corrected by collation with Greek Copies But that they might not be very dissonant from the custome of the Latine Reading I haue so tempered with my stile the Translation of the Ancients that those things amended which did seem to change the sense other things I haue suffered to remain as they were So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Primitiue Church 60 The Corruption that you charge Luther with and the falsification that you impute to Zwinglius what haue we to doe with them or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the Errours which Lyranus or Paulus Brugensis or Laurentius Valla or Cajetan or Erasmus or Arias Montanus or Augustus Nebiensis or Pagnine haue committed in their Translations 61 Which yet I say not as if these Translations of Luther and Zwinglius were absolutely indefensible for what such great difference is there between Faith without the Works of the Law and Faith alone without the Works of the Law or why does not Without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Consider the matter a little better and obserue the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talke and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invectiue And then for Zwinglius if it bee true as they say it is that the language our Saviour spake in had no such word as To signifie but used alwaies to be insteed of it as it is certain the Scripture does in a hundred places then this Translation which you so declaim against will prove no falsification in Zwinglius but a calumny in you 62 But the faith of Protestants relies upon Scripture alone Scripture is delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men who certainly may erre because they are Men and certainly doe erre at least some of them because their Translations are contrary It seemes then the Faith and consequently the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertaine grounds 63 This Objection though it may seeme to doe you great service for the present yet I feare you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties For the objection returnes upon you many waies as first thus The salvation of many millions of Papists as they suppose and teach depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest That such or such a man is Priest not himselfe much lesse any other can haue any possible certainty for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals He that will pretend to be certain of it must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow 64 First that he was baptized with due Matter Secondly with the due forme of words which he cannot know unlesse he were both present and attentiue Thirdly he must know that hee was baptiz'd with due Intention and that is that the Minister of his Baptisme was not a secret Iew nor a Moore nor an Atheist of all which kinds I feare experience giues you just cause to feare that Italy and Spaine haue Priests not a few but a Christian in heart as well as Profession otherwise believing the Sacrament to be nothing in giving it he could intend to giue nothing nor a Samâ—satenian nor an Arrian but one that was capable of having due intention from which they that belieue not the doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you And lastly that he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the Sacrament nor out of negligence or malice omitted his intention 65 Fourthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which ordained him Priest ordained him compleatly with due Matter Form and Intention and consequently that he againe was neither Iew nor Moore nor Atheist nor lyable to any such exception as is unconsistent with due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders 66 Fiftly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himselfe for your rule is Nihil dat quod non habet And consequently that there was again none of the former nullities in his Baptisme which might make him incapable of Ordination nor no invalidity in his Ordination but a true Priest to ordaine him again the requisite matter and forme and due intention all concurring 67 Lastly he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest and him that made Him Priest even untill he comes to the very fountain of Priesthood For take any one in the whole train succession of Ordainers suppose him by reason of any defect only a supposed not a true Priest then according to your doctrine he could not give a true but only a supposed Priesthood and they that receive it of him again they that derive it from theÌ„ can give no better then they received receiving 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 No Principle in Geometry being more certain then this That the unsuppliable defect of any necessary Antecedent must needs cause a nullity of all those Consequences which depend upon it In fine to know this one thing you must first know ten thousand others whereof not any one is a thing that can be known there being no necessity that it should be true which only can qualify any thing for an object of Science but only at the best a high degree of probability that it is so But then that often thousand probables no one should be false that of ten thousand requisites whereof any one may faile not one should be wanting this to mee is extreamly improbable and even cosen german to Impossible So that the assurance hereof is like a machine composed of an innumerable multitude of pieces of which it is strangely
Therefore there was then an infallible Iudge Iust as if I should say Yorke is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a dogge is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himselfe to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church S. Chrysostome and Isidorus Pelusiota conceaved he might use other meanes And S. Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his workes and that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 125 But D. Potter saies you say In the Iewish Church there was a living Iudge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible â—or certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truely say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doâ— otherwise 126 But either the Church retaines still her infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An argument me thinkes like this Either you have hornes or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had hornes so say I for ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility 127 But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Iudge of Controversies some Churches had one Iudge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Iudge and another another especially seeing the bookes of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contained in every one of the four Gospells as I have prov'd So that 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 said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospells wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly infer'd by you that with months and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 128 Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned avoyded unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to Informe us what is the faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy seeing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God That this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinatly offend him that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Saviour of the World that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Assention or sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be sav'd That they which doe not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoid that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answere that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that does not doe so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdome to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himselfe hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes had written Lawes for the government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactnesse and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdome be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and faile of performance by reason of their errour 128 But It is more usefull fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to haue besides an infallible rule to goe by a living infallible Iudge to determine them from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Iudge But why then may not another say that it is yet more usefull for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should bee infallible then that the Pope only should Another that it would bee yet more usefull that all the
event was what effect was wrought in me by the perusall and consideration of it To deal truly and ingenuously with you I fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency syncerity but was exceedingly confirm'd in my ill opinion of the cause maintained by you I found every where snares that might entrap and colours that might deceive the simple but nothing that might perswade and very little that might move an understanding man and one that can discerne between discourse and sophistry In short I was verily perswaded that I plainly saw and could make it appear to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate Iudges 〈◊〉 a vein of sophistry and calumny did run clean through it from 〈◊〉 begining to the end And letting some friends understand so much 〈◊〉 my selfe to be perswaded by them that it would not be either unproper for me nor un-acceptable to God nor peradventure altogether unserviceable to his Church nor justly offensive to you if you indeed were a lover of Truth and not a maintainer of a Faction if setting aside the second Part which was in a manner wholly employed in particular disputes repetitions and references and in wranglings with D. Potter about the sense of some super-numerary quotations and whereon the main question no way depends I would make a faire and ingenuous Answer to the first wherein the substance of the present Controversy is confessedly contained and which if it were clearly answered no man would desire any other answer to the second This therefore I undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your errors but a friend and servant to your person and so much the more a friend to your person by how much the severer and more rigid adversary I was to your errors 4 In this work my conscience beares me witnesse that I have according to your advice proceeded alwayes with this consideration that I am to give a most strict account of every line and word that passeth under my pen and therefore have been precisely carefull for the matter of my book to defend truth only and only by Truth And then scrupulously fearefull of scandalizing you or any man with the manner of handling it From this rule sure I am I have not willingly swerved in either part of it and that I might not doe it ignorantly I have not only my self examined mine owne work perhaps with more severity then I have done yours as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to goe about to satisfie others with what I my self am not fully satisfied But have also made it passe the fiery tryall of the exact censures of many understanding judges alwaies heartily wishing that you your selfe had been of the Quorum But they who did undergoe this burthen as they wanted not sufficiencie to discover any heterodoxe doctrine so I am sure they have been very carefull to let nothing flip dissonant from truth or from the authorized doctrine of the Church of England and therefore whatsoever causelesse and groundlesse jealousy any man may entertain concerning my Person yet my book I presume in reason and common equity should be free from them wherein I hope that little or nothing hath escap'd so many eyes which being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary will be found too light And in this hope I am much confirm'd by your strange carriage of your selfe in this whole businesse For though by some crooked and sinister arts you have got my Answer into your hands now a yeare since and upwards as I have been assured by some that know it and those of your own party though you could not want every day faire opportunityes of sending to me and acquainting me with any exceptions which you conceived might be justly taken to it or any part of it then which nothing could have been more welcome to me yet hitherto you have not been pleased to acquaint mee with any one Nay more though you have been at sundry times and by severall waies entreated and sollicited nay press'd and importun'd by me to joyne with me in a private discussion of the Controversy between us before the publication of my Answer because I was extremely unwilling to publish any thing which had not passed all manner of tryals as desiring not that I or my Side but that truth might overcome on which Side soever it was though I have protâ—sted to you and set it under my hand which protestation by Gods help I would have made good if you or any other would undertake your cause would give me a faire meeting and choose out of your whole Book any one argument wherof you were most confident and by which you would be content the rest should be judged of and make it appeare that I had not or could not answer it that I would desist from the work which I had undertaken and answer none at all though by all the Arts which possibly I could devise I have provoked you to such a tryall in particular by assuring you that if you refus'd it the world should be inform'd of your tergiversation notwithstanding all this you have perpetually and obstinately declined it which to my understanding is a very evident signe that there is not any truth in your cause nor which is impossible there should bee strength in your arguments especially considering what our Saviour hath told us every one that doth evill hateth the light neither commeth to the light least his deeds should be reproved but he that doth truth commeth to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God 5 In the meane while though you despaired of compassing your desire this honest way yet you have not omitted to tempt me by base and unworthy considerations to desert the cause which I had undertaken letting me understand from you by an acquaintance common to us both how that in case my work should come to light my inconstancy in religion so you miscall my constancy in following that way to heaven which for the present seemes to me the most probable should bee to my great shame painted to the life that my owne writings should be producâ—d against my selfe that I should bee urged to answer my owne motives against Protestantisme and that such things should be published to the world touching my beliefe for my painter I must expect should have great skill in perspective of the doctrine of the Trinity the Deity of our Saviour and all supernaturall verities as should endanger all my benefices present or future that this warning was given me not out of feare of what I could say for that Catholiques if they might wish any ill would beg the Publication of my booke for respects obvious enough but out of a meer charitable desire of my good and reputation and that all this was said upon a supposition that I was answering or had a minde to answer Charity maintained If not no harme was done To which coâ—â—â—â—us premonition as I remember I desired
And indeed take away the authority of Gods Church no man can be assured that any one Book or parcell of Scripture was written by divine inspiration or that all the contents are infallibly true which are the direct errors of Socinians If it were but for thiâ— reason alone no man who regards the eternall salvation of his soule would live or dye in Protestancy from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and waies and must abandon all infused faith and true Religion if he doe but understand himselfe aright In all which discourse the only true word you speak is This I say confidently As for proving evidently that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it 10 You say indeed confidently enough that the denyall of the Churches infallibility is the Mother Heresy from which all other must follow at ease Which is so farre from being a necessary truth as you make it that it is indeed a manifest falshood Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good or so much as probable consequence from the deniall of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies or any one error of the Socinians which are the Heresies here entreated of For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus Neither the Church of Rome nor any other Church is infallible go The doctrine of Arrius Pelagius Eutyches Nestorius Photinus Manichaeus was true Doctrine On the other side it may be truly sayed and justified by very good and effectuall reason that he that affirms with you the Popes infallibility puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresy and even to Hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his grounds Domine cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue nay which is a horrible but a most certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope to say so Which I say and will maintain howsoever you daube and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but reall enemy For that name and no better if we may speak truth without offence I presume he deserves who under pretence of interpreting the law of Christ which Authority without any word of expresse warrant he hath taken upon himself doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences and in stead of Christ setting up himself In as much as he that requires that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine seeme they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it as the Bishop of Rome does requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Laws and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgment they seem unreasonable is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a veniall sin and fornication no sinne whensoever the Pope and his adherents shall so declare And whatsoever he may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Lawmaker both stales and obeyes only the interpreter As if I should pretend that I should submit to the Laws of the King of England but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sence which the King of France should put upon them what soever it were I presume every understanding man would say that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England If I should pretend to believe the Bible but that I would understand it according to the sence which the chiefe Mufty should put upon it who would not say that I were a Christian in pretence only but indeed a Mahumetan 11 Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot be feared that any Pope should ever goe about to dissolve them and pretend to be a Christian For not to say that you now pretend the contrary to wit that the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done and by saying so have made a fair way for any fowleâ— interpretation of any part of it certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument that if she once had this power unquestion'd and made expedite and ready for use by being contracted to the Pope she may doe what she pleaseth with it Who that had liv'd in the Primitive Church would not have thought it as utterly improbable that ever they should have brought in the worship of Images and picturing of God as now it is that they should legitimate fornication Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity as well as they have taken away half of it Why may we not think that any Text and any sence may not be accorded aswell as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth is reconcil'd to the Latine service How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden then the worship of Angels in the Ep. to the Colossians then the teaching for Doctrines mens commands in the Gospell of S. Mark And therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believ'd that had not seen them why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be us'd hereafter with as litle moderation Seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without Idolatry and kill innocent men under pretence of heresie without murder who knowes not that some tricks may not be hereafter deuis'd by which lying with other mens wives shall be no Adultery taking away other mens goods no theft I conclude therefore that if Solomon himself were here and were to determine the difference which is more likely to be mother of all Heresy The deniall of the Churche's or the affirming of the Popes infallibility that he would certainly say this is the mother give her the child 12 You say again confidently that if this infallibility be once impeached every man is given â—ver to his own wit and discourse which if you mean discourse not guiding it selfe by Scripture but only by principles of nature or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors and drawing consequences not by rule but chance is by no means true if you mean by discourse right reason grounded on Divine revelation and common notions written by God in the hearts of all
men and deducing according to the never failing rules of Logick consequent deductions from them if this be it which you mean by discourse it is very meet reasonable necessary that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to happinesse should be left unto it and he that followes this in all his opinions and actions and does not only seeme to doe so followes alwaies God whereas he that followeth a Company of men may oftimes follow a company of beasts And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or no and the rule he gives them to make this tryall by is to consider whether they confesse Iesus to be the Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their actions no◠whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all things and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in cōmanding all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them then our Saviour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch and again in saying even to the people Yea why of your selves iudge ye not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or preiudice by want of reason or not using that they have men may be and are oftentimes led into error and mischiefe yet that they cannot be misguided by discourse truly so called such as I have described you your selfe have given them security For what is discourse but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence Now the principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true And you have told us in the fourth chap. of this Pamphlet that from truth no man can by good consequence inferre falshood Therefore by discourse no man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his conclusions he must of necessity either erre in his principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his discourse that is indeed not discourse but seeme to doe so 13 You say thirdly with sufficient confidence that if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the privat Spirit or else naturall wit and iudgement and by them examine what Scriptures containe true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or reiected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proofe of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly erre in her judgement touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the privat spirit and the examination of the contents which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly to wit that such or such a book cannot come from God because it containes irreconcileable contradictions but the affirmative it cannot conclude because the contents of a book may be all true and yet the book not written by divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three that is the testimony of the Primitive Christians 14 You say Fourthly with convenient boldnesse That this infallible Authority of your Church being denied no man can be assur'd that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proofe is pretended and besides void of modesty and full of impiety The first because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assur'd that the Scripture is divinely inspir'd and yet deny the infallible authority of your Church or any other The second because if◠I cannot have ground to be assur'd of the divine authority of Scripture unlesse I first believe your Church infallible then I can have no ground at all to believe it because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church infallible unlesse I first beleeve the Scripture divine 15 Fiftly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the infallible authority of your Church but he must abandon all infus'd faith and true religion if he doe but understand him selfe Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of your hearts you speak very often That all Christians besides you are open Fooles or conceal'd Atheists All this you say with notable confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking but then for the evidence you promised to maintaine this confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible 16 Had I a mind to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you doe Protestants that they lead men to Socinianisme I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence then you have done For I would not tell you you deny the infallibility of the Church of England ergo you lead to Socinianisme which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman Church ergo they induce Socinianisme Nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes infallibility you submit your selfe to that capitall and Mother Heresy by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice and vice vertue to believe Antichristianity Christianisme and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianisme to Turcisme nay to the Divell himselfe if he have a mind to it But I would shew you that divers waies the Doctors of your Church doe the principall and proper work of the Socinians for the undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the Faith which alone are fit and able to support it I mean Scripture and the Consent of the ancient Doctors 17 For Scripture your men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinall Hosius De Author Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De verbo Dei C. 19. by Gretserus and Tanerus in Colloquio Ratesbon And also by Vega Possevin Wiekus and Others 18 And then for the Consent of the Ancients that that also delivers it not by whom are we taught but by Papists only Who is it that makes known to all the world that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian libraries was an Arrian Is it not your great Achilles Cardinall Perron in his 3. Book 2. Chap. of his Reply to K. Iames Who is it that informs us that Origen who never was questioned for any error in this matter in or
have been accomplished in and by the Catholicke Roman Religion and the Professors of it and not by Protestant Religion and the Professors of it 6 Because the doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church even by the confession of Protestants themselves I meane those fathers who lived within the compasse of the first 600. years to whom Protestants themselves doe very frequently and very confidently appeale 7 Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God nor ordinary Mission from the Church to preach Protestant Doctrine 8 Because Luther to preach against the Masse which containes the most materiall points now in controversy was perswaded by reasons suggested to him by the Divell himselfe disputing with him So himselfe professeth in his Book de Missa Privata That all men might take heed of following him who professeth himselfe to follow the Divell 9 Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the begining maintained with grosse falsifications and Calumnies whereof their prime Controversy writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty 10 Because by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councells or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible meanes of suppressing Heresy or restoring unity to the Church These are the Motives now my Answers to them follow brieâ—ly and in order 43 To the first God hath neither decreed nor foretold that his true Doctrine should de facto be alwaies visibly prfessed without any mixture of falshood To the second God hath neither decreed nor foretold that there shall be alwaies a visible company of men free from all error in it selfe damnable Neither is it alwaies of necessity Schismaticall to separate from the externall communion of a Church though wanting nothing necessary For if this Church suppos'd to want nothing necessary require me to professe against my conscience that I believe some error though never so small and innocent which I doe not believe and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition In this case the Church for requiring this condition is Schismaticall and not I for separating from the Church To the third If any credit may be given to Records farre more creditable then these the Doctrine of Protestants that is the Bible hath been confirm'd and the Doctrine of Papists which is in many points plainly opposite to it confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles as much as the Sunne doth an Ignis fatuus those I mean which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Now this book by the confession of all sides confirm'd by innumerous Miracles foretels me plainly that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine and that I am not to believe any doctrine which seemes to my understanding repugnant to the first though an Angell from Heaven should teach it which were certainly as great a Miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome But that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of Miracles that I am no where taught So that I have more reason to suspect and be afraid of pretended Miracles as signes of false doctrine then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth Besides setting aside the Bible the Tradition of it there is as good story for Miracles wrought by those who lived and died in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church as by S. Cyprian Colmannus Columbanus Aidanus and others as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church Lastly it seemes to me no strange thing that God in his Iustice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many as apparently the professors of the Roman Doctrine have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austine were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fift Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixt The Doctrine of Papists is confess'd by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seaventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrine or practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to doe a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will doe it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a country of Infidels had ability to perswade them to Christianity who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luthers conference with the Divell might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy dreame If it were reall the Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his diswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himselfe to have been perswaded by the Divell To the ninth Illiacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Even this very author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies To the tenth Let all men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall finde this not only a better but the only meanes to suppresse Heresy and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretique And if no more then this were requir'd of any man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion The Preface to the READER GIVE me leave good Reader to informe thee by way of Preface of three points The first concernes D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third containes some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalfe thinke fit to rejoyne 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answere I say in generall reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Booke he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question which was Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their severall professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in generall
that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to harken to her that shee must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones selfe from her communion is Schisme and to dissent from her doctrine is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is wholy vaine as it is applied by Protestants These I say and some other generall grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth cleerely evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to soules which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation indifferent Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appeares to have been his designe which was not to descend to particular disputes as D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse whether Generall Councells be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a Generall Councell whether all points of faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formall Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius all which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said drawes by violence into his Book and he might as well have brought in Pope Ioan or Antichrist or the Iewes who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the mind of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole Answere he uttered nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirme plainely that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation if they deny it to us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must graunt that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not fundamentall errors though it should be granted that they be errors which indeed are Catholique verities For since they be not fundamentall not destructive of salvation what imports it whether we hold them or no for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved 3 In one thing only he will perhaps seeme to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall because some may thinke that a difference in points which are not fundamentall breakes not the Vnity of Faith and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but only saies that there are some points so fundamentall as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely but never tells us whether there be any other points of faith which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by almighty God which was the only thing in question For if it be damnable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty God though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one only can be saved though their difference consist of divers or but even one point which is not in his own nature fundamentall as I declare at large in divers places of my first part So that it is cleere D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction never comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himselfe doth quite overthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4 And as for D. Potters manner of handling those very points which are utterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections which have been answered a thousand times yea and some of them are cleerely answered even in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all af any such answeres and much lesse doth he apply himselfe to confute them He alleadgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud as I would not have believed if I had not found it by cleere and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two grosse corruptions amongst many others no lesse notorious having as it seemes been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him though withall he read the Second For preventing of which inconvenience I have thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discover them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well have spared his paines if he had ingeniously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in farre briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Vshers preached before our late soveraigne Lord King Iames the 20. of Iune 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Vniversality of the Church of Christ and the Vnity of Faith professed therein which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholike Divine under the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compasse of about 4. sheets of Paper D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a generall Censure of his Answere to Charity Mistaken 6 For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulke
thereof compared either with Charity Mistaken or D Potters Answere I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say and then I hope you will see that I was cast upon a meere necessity of not being so short as otherwise might peradventure be desired Charity Mistaken is short I grant and yet very â—ull and large for as much as concerned his designe which you see was not to treat of particular Controversies in Religion no not so much as to debate whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ which indeed would have required a larger Volume as I have understood there was one then comming forth if it had not bee prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken which seemed to make the other intended worke a little lesse seasonable at that time But Charity Mistaken proves only in Generall out of some Vniversall Principles well backed and made good by choice solid authorities that of two disagreeing in points of Faith one only without repentance can be saved which ayme exacted no great bulk And as for D. Potters Answere even that also is not so short as it may seem For if his marginall notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the Text the Book would appear to be of some bulk though indeed it might have been very short if he had kept himselfe to the point treated by Charity Mistaken as shall be declared anon But contrarily because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined and in regard that there is not a more pernitious Heresy or rather indeed ground of Atheisme then a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civill and morall life I conceaved that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D Potter but that it was necessary to handle the Question it selfe somewhat at large and not only to prove in generall that both Protestants and Catholikes cannot be saved but to shew also that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church and yet withall not to omit to answere all the particulars of D. Potters Book which may any way import To this end I thought it fit to divide my Reply into two Parts in the formet whereof the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potters Answere though yet so as that even in this first Part I omit not to answere such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points whereof I treat and in the second Part I answere D. Potters Treanse Section by Section as they lye in order I heer therefore intreat the Reader that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question he doe not content himselfe with that which I say to Doctor Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him eyther all or at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which presse him most For which purpose I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles and Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chiefe reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect For there are so severall kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man convince but one kind of them the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied and even unspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example some hold a necessity of a perpetuall visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours and others that their businesse is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwaies visible for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so the like may be truly said of very many other particulars Besides it is D. Potters fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he prove the last of that humour to touch in a word many triviall old objections which if they be not all answered it will and must serve the turne to make the more ignorant sort of men believe and brag as if some maine unanswerable matter had been subtily and purposely omitted and every body knowes that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words the cleere and solid answere whereof will require more leaves of paper theâ— one And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compasse of so few lines and with so great confusednesse and fraud that it requires much time paines and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appear to every mans eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted all which could not but adde to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to believe that whereas nothing is more necessary then books for answering of books yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter meerely upon necessity though I did very well perceive by most apparant circumstances that I must probably have been sure inough to find them plainly misalleadged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to doe it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much advantage therein But truth is truth and will ever be able to justify it self in the midst of all difficulties which may occurre As for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well domesticall as forraine I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my selfe obliged for divers of them to the author of the Book entituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church who calls himselfe Iohn Brerely whose care exactnesse and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Bookes but the Editions also with the place and time of their printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to finde what he cites yet suspend your judgment till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulnesse on his behalfe it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print in which prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons which must needs occur to any prudent man 8. And for asmuch as concernes the manner of my Reply I have procured
errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to doe that which both in your account and as you think in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith which can be no other then the Church 13 Others affirme that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Bookes But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answere our argument is strengthened because divers Apocryphall writings have appeared under the Titles and Names of sacred Authors as the Gospell of Thomas mentioned by S. Augustine the Gospell of Peter which the Nazaraei did use as Theodoret witnesseth with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop was for some time deceived as may be read in Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of Peter The like may be said of the Gospells of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specified by Pope Gelasius Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes as also both we and they hold for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which goe under the name of Esdras and yet both of us receive his first and second book Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall which D. Covell acknowledgeth in these words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospell who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Gospell of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Lukes Gospell who saw not Christ and to reiect the Gospell of Nicodemus who saw him 14 Another Answer or rather Objection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians So D. Potter But this is either a plain begging of the question or manifestly untrue and is directly against their own doctrine and practise If they mean that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most known in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle for example the Church whereby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most known in Christianity then Scripture may be proved For principles that are not the first not known of themselves may and ought to be proved before we can yeild assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their own doctrine and practise in as much as they are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another And since every Scripture is a principle sufficient upon which to ground divine faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proved by another Yea this their Answer upon due ponderation falls out to prove what we affirme For since all Principles cannot be proved we must that our labour may not be endlesse come at length to rest in some principle which may not require any other proof Such is Tradition which involves an evidence of fact and from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church S. Athanasius saith that only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church have so determined The third Councell of Carthage having set down the Bookes of holy Scripture gives the reason because We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church 8. Augustine speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which book I must give credit if I give credit to the Gospell because the Catholique Church doth a like recommend to me both these Bookes And in the same place he hath also these words I would not believe the Gospell unles the authority of the Catholique Church did move me A saying so plain that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Heere I implore your equity to speak freely whether this saying of Augustine seem not overbold or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him 15 But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonicall this will little avail them unles they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted or what Translations be true Calvin acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yes period can be securely understood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hieroms time invented by the perfidious Iewes who either by ignorance might mistake or upon malice force the Text to favour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retaines much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists which also proves the Greek for the New Testament not to be void of doubtfulnes as Calvin confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other tongues wherein no private man having any premise or assurance of infallibility Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone will find no certain ground for their faith as accordingly Whitaker affirmeth Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek doe erre often and unavoidably 16 Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious exact and jucicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory hath to this purpose To omit saith he particulars whose recitall would be infinite and to touch this point but generally only the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas O siander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of Divinity fooles Asses Anuchrists deceavers and of Asse-like understanding In so much that when Froschoverus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there Luther would not receive the same but sending it
back reiected it as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witnesse The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall As concerning Calvins translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molineus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Bezas translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the Vniversity of Iena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly prohibited All which confirmeth your Maiesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all and that in the Marginall notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partiall untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Book of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they doe therefore professe to rest doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English Translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the ignorant that in many places they doe detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darknesse more then light falshood more then truth And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse give their publike testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirme that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus farre the Author of the Protestants Apology c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Iustification by faith alone translateth Iustified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Mark and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body This is my Blood translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloâ—d And here let Prorestants consider duely of these points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre and no greater evidence of truth then that it is evident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwaies visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farre prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman Church is commended even by our adversaries and D. Covel in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17 But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they doe Hence M. Hooker saith We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe unto some iudiciall and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgement 18 And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against
That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceiue in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied Demands till we rest in somthing evident of it selfe which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controversies in faith depend 26 To they 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. § The summe and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appeares by the Confessions of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to bee determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27 To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirm'd to be the rule by which all controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe For as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tels us That when it is said he hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we doe and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his own may say all my substance is in this ship and yet never intend to deny that his ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we inferre from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himselfe Your negative conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any reason to prove it it is evident of it selfe and I grant it without more adoe But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary reader that therefore they are to be decided by your or any visible Church is a meere inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus and himselfe For so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to doe with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a book be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly Canonicall yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient Churches any book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonicall or to be doubted of as uncertain or rejected as Apocryphall according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the learned have the same meanes to satisfy themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the language of the Originall and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know what certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no reall difference as in the translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have and it is not required that we use any better then the best we have 28 You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answere it would be so if we could be infallibly certaine that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it selfe and seen by its own light or could be reduc'd unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves doe not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofes infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and principall motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turne and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confesse that this very Rock stands it selfe at the best but upō a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the reall prescription of this priviledge but only pleaseth her selfe with a false imagination and vaine presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments 29 Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austine in this sense which is your own and they will not presse us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only foure Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon haue so determined 54 We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Catholique Church did moue us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himselfe and his Apostles Neither would Zwinglius haue needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now doe that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councell of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonicall and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were onely profitable and lawfull to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonicall where every body knowes that Apocryphall books are read as well as Canonicall But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospell but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonicall is to be so esteem'd Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may happily erre and think that Book received as Canonicall which was only received as Profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55 But we cannot be certain in what language the Scriptures remaine uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which wee can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will beare So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptisme against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He meanes sure in matters of little moment such as concerne not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. cleerly intimates That in his judgement the only preservatiue of the Scriptures integritie was the translating it into so many Languages and the generall and perpetuall use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kinde but the Canonicall Scripture being by this meanes guarded with universall care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scripture's incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more â—â—rme and certain to be relied upon then the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground wee haue to build upon as well as He had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56 This is not all I haue to say in this matter For I will adde moreover that we are as certaine in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was untill Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar translation For you doe not nor cannot without extreme impudence deny that untill then there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more then one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it lesse impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could untill Clement's time haue any certainty what that one true Copie and reading was if there were any one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think them selues cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how fowly they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57 This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remaines uncorrupted is it necessary to haue it or is it not If it be not I hope we may doe well enough without it If it be necessary what became of your Church for 1500 yeares together All which time you must confesse she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are growne to a higher degree of Presumption in this point yet are you as farre as ever from any true and reall and rationall assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my selfe to haue prou'd unanswerably in divers places 58 In the sixteenth Division It is objected to Protestants in a long discourse transcrib'd out of the Protestants Apologie That their translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luthers Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basill that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks King Iames. And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans 59 All which might haue been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church mâ—de use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which haue translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seem'd to himselfe to haue some ability in both Languages he presently ventur'd upon an Interpretation So He in his second book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learne from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same book Amongst all these Interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferr'd for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so farre was the Church of that time
not so as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly some more properly whereof it were easy to produce innumerable examples And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then Generall of the Society who was a great part of that Councell present at all the Actions of it and of very great authority in it 77 To this so great authority he addes a reason of his opinion which with all indifferent men will be of a farre greater authority If the Councell saith he had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects and to make it of equall authority and credit with the Fountaines certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the errors of the Interpreter which certainly they did not 78 Lastly Bellarmine himselfe though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition yet he acknowledges that the case may and does oft-times so fall out that it is impossible to discerne which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition but only by recourse unto the Originalls and dependance upon them 79 From all which it may evidently be collected that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition yet the matter is not so certain and so resolved but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand and very doubtfull sometimes whether your Vulgar translation be true and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translatiō sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation nor consonant to the Originall as it was at first delivered And what thē can be alleadged but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred inforced upon you that not only in your Lay-men but your Clergy men Schollers Faith Truth and Salvation all depends upon fallible uncertain grounds And thus by ten severall retortions of this one Argument I have endeavoured to shew you how ill you have complyed with your own advise which was to take heed of urging arguments that might be return'd upon you I should now by a direct answer shew that it presseth not us at all but I have in passing done it already in the end of the second retortion of this argument and thither I referre the Reader 80 Whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures to fly to your Church for it I desire to know if they should follow your advise how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance which hath been confessedly so negligent as to suffer many whole books of Scripture to be utterly lost Again in those that remain confessedly so negligent as to suffer the Originalls of these that remain to be corrupted And lastly so carelesse of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them without keeping any one perfect Copy which might have been as the Standard and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by So that which was the true reading and which the false it was utterly undiscernable but only by comparing them with the Originalls which also she pretends to be corrupted 81 But Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length enforced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councells by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now reigne 82 And what if Luther having a Pope in his belly as he was wont to say that most men had and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations passe without examining spake such words in heat of Argument Doe you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches will you oblige your selfe to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors If not why doe you trouble us with what Luther saies and what Calvin saies Yet this I say not as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose For what if he feared or pretended to feare that the infallibility of Councells being rejected some men would fall into greater errors then were impos'd upon them by the Councells Is this to confesse that there is any present visible Church upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them Let the Reader judge But in my opinion to feare a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the lesse is not to confesse that the lesse is none at all 83 For D. Covels commending your Translation what is it to the businesse in hand or how proves it the perfection of it which is here contested any more then S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation argues the perfection of that or that there was no necessity that S. Hierome should correct it D. Covell commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester and so does D. Iames and so doe I. But I commend it for a good Translation not for a perfect Good may be good and deserve commendations and yet better may be better And though he saies that the then approved Translation of the Church of England is that which cōmeth nearest the Vulgar yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it So that whereas you inferre that the truth of your Translation must be the Rule to judge of the goodnesse of ours this is but a vain florish For to say of our Translations That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar and yet it is but one man that saies so is not to say it is therefore the best because it does so For this may be true by accident and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours For had that been their direction they would not only have made a Translation that should come neere to yours but such a one which should exactly agree with it and be a Translation of your Translation 84 Ad 17. § In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of Scripture Which hath been answered already by saying That if you speak of plain places and in such all things necessary are contained we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them neither need they any Interpreter If of obscure and difficult places we confesse we are uncertaine of the sense of many of them But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain For if Gods will had been we should haue understood him more certainly he would haue spoken more plainly And we say besides that as we are uncertain so are You too which he that doubts of let him read your Commentators upon the Bible and obserue their various and dissonant interpretations and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction 85 But seeing there are contentions among us we are taught by nature
and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to finde it But this wee know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authoriz'd thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we doe that all sinne were abolisht yet we haue little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selues with and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God has appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies therefore though it seemes to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to haue one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best known to himselfe not to allow us this convenience 86 D. Fields words which follow I confesse are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book so acknowledg'd by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable hee might meane all that are or haue been in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Iudgement we shall rest in if wee belieue the Scripture endeavour to finde the true sense of it and liue according to it 87 Ad 18. § That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any societie of men nay from any man whatsoever 88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true that is it which you would haue said and that in some sense may bee also admitted viz. if your speake of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Vpon the Tradition of which Church you there told us We were to receiue the Scripture and to belieue it to bee the Word of God For there you teach us that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to belieue it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture we belieue therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us this or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to belieue that also this is too transparent Sophistrie to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture produce it and proue it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition yet we receiue neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90 First for the Scripture how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonicall which formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time or else hee was no member of your Church for it is apparent He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time as it is evident out of many places of his Works 91 If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly what he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then choose whether you will either that the particular Roman Church was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatresse so often translates false Or if you say shee was you will runne into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall 92 Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman
Church which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authenticall Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes according to the vulgar Edition But aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books bee true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defectiue in things necessary neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō in those things which he would haue known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men and that is to set life and death before him and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre that was left to their liberty God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he giues the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be follow'd like the Wise men's Starre Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and loue of the Truth and desire to finde the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty then he can of the Sunne to shine of the Sea to ebb flowe and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you doe not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselues If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they doe how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94 Again why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it selfe tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95 If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot doe it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work then I confesse you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himselfe in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your selfe ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himselfe 96 If you say your meaning is only
That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief 97 To the place of S. Austine I answere That not the authority of the present Church much lesse of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd and which it selfe needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil Cred. c. 14. he shewes that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition lyes against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may doe well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98 If you say that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99 I answer First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge It will serve to keepe an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and the Church as much as the Papists now doe If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should haue mov'd him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not beleive the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying beleive the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me doe not beleive the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians they warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I beleive them I cannot beleive thee If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe If you say you did well to beleive them commending the Gospell but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should beleive what thou wilt and not beleive what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethinke your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100 Whereas you aske Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand againe whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then aske as you doe Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing I answer Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his baptisme education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief
thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Iesus did those miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Bookes of the New Testament I believed by Fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an universall and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you professe it is lawfull for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulnesse and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnesse and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Popes infallibility his Authority over Kings c. so new I say in comparison of the undoubted bookes of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving Authority with wise and considerate men What madnesse is this Believe them the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damne all other parts of Christendome Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to believe in Christ then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him at least then that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and false Authors have taken a faire way to make the faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the sixe Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not usurpe the same authority upon the Authors of the sixe last Ages before them and so upwards untill we come to Christ himselfe Whose question'd Doctrines none of them came from the fountain of Apostolike tradition but have insinuated themselves into the Streames by little and little some in one age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embrio's yet hatching and in the shell as the Popes infallibility the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception the Popes power over the Temporalties of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be impos'd upon Christians under the Title of Originall and Apostolike Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teaches me and not others somethings which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdome and experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farre from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude Seeing we receive not the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 102 Ad. § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Iudge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Iudge and not the Scripture 103 To this I answere As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make your selfe Iudge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Iudge of Controversies If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with sophistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to inferre in the end which indeed was more then you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Iudge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still runne upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Iudge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Iudge of Controversies that they have the authority of Fathers of warrant their manner of speaking as of Optatus 104 But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Iudge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both doe what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have
Archbishops of every Province should be so then that the Patriarchs only should be so Another That it would be yet more usefull if all the Bishops of every Diocesse were so Another that it would be yet more available that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so Another that it would be yet more excellent if all the Fathers of Families were so And lastly another that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so just as much as the prevention of Controversies is better then the decision of them and the prevention of Heresies better then the condemnation of them and upon this ground conclude by your own very coÌ„sequence That not only a generall Councell nor only the Pope but all the Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Pastors Fathers nay all the men in the World are infallible If you say now as I am sure you will that this conclusion is most grosse and absurd against sense and experience then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows viz. that That course of dealing with men seems alwaies more fit to Divine Providence which seemes most 〈◊〉 to humane reason 129 And so likewise That there should men succeed the Apostles which could shew theâ—selues to be their successours by doing of Miracles by speaking all kinde of languages by delivering men to Satan as S. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian it is manifest in humane reason it were incomparably more fit and usefull for the decision of Controversies then that the successour of the Apostles should haue none of these gifts and for want of the signes of Apostleship be justly questionable whether he be his successour or no and will you now conclude That the Popes haue the gift of doing Miracles as well as the Apostles had 130 It were in all reason very usefull and requisite that the Pope should by the assistance of Gods Spirit be freed from the vices passions of men lest otherwise the Authority given him for the good of the Church he might imploy as divers Popes you well know haue done to the disturbance and oppression and mischiefe of it And will you conclude from henâ—e That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men That there never haue been ambitious covetous lustfull tyrannous Popes 131 Who sees not that for mens direction it were much morâ— beneficiall for the Church that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person then in a generall Councell That so the meanes of deciding Controversies might be speedy easy and perpetuall whereas that of generall Councells is not so And will you hence inferre that not the Church Representative but the Pope is indeed the infallible Iudge of Controversies certainly if you should the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good conclusion 132 It had been very commodious one would think that seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated or else in his Providence he knew it would be so that he had appointed some men for this businesse and by his Spirit assisted them in it that so we might have Translations as Authenticall as the Originall yet you see God did not think fit to doe so 133 It had been very commodious one would think that the Scripture should have been at least for all things necessary a Rule plain and perfect And yet you say it is both imperfect and obscure even in things necessary 134 It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of readings which makes men very uncertain in many places which is the word of God and which is the errour or presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us 135 Who can conceive but that an Apostolike Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have been straÌ„gely beneficiall to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them as is by you pretended and God in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians would not accept of the Pope for the Iudge of Controversies And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter 136 Who doth not see that supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church and â—â—dge of Controversies that it would have been infinitely beneficiall to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in Termes The Bishops of Rome shall be alwaies Monarchs of the Church they either alone or with their adherents the Guides of faith and the Iudges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians This if you will deal ingenuously you cannot but acknowledge for then all true Christians would have submitted to him as willingly as to Christ himselfe neither needed you and your fellowes have troubled your selfe to invent so many Sophismes for the proofe of it There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians then there is of the Nativity Passion Resurrection or Ascention of Christ. You were best now rubbe your forehead hard and conclude upon us that because this would have been so usefull to have been done therefore it is done Or if you be as I know you are too ingenuous to say so then must you acknowledge that the ground of your Argument which is the very ground of all these absurdities is most absurd and that it is our duty to be humbly thankfull for those sufficient nay abundant meanes of Salvation which God hath of his own goonesse granted us and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done because forsooth in our vain judgements it seemes convenient he should have done so 137 But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church and existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Out of which words I can frame no other argument for you theÌ„ this There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures existence and the Churches infallibility therefore the Church is infallible Which consequence will then be good when you can shew that nothing can be untrue but that only which is impossible that whatsoever may be done that also is done Which if it were true would conclude both you and me to be infallible as well as either your Church or Pope in as much as there is no more repugnance between the Scriptures existence and our infallibility then there is between theirs 138 But if Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof infallibility went out of the Church This Argument put in forme runs thus No Scripture affirmes that by the entring thereof infallibility went out of the Church Therefore there is an infallible Church therefore the Scripture alone is
that there is no falshood at all but only want of divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed or else must yeeld that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterward received for such but never any one book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Oâ—ission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13 Nay to limit the generall promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamentall namely that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to Points fundamentall and whatsoever generall Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their infallibility they may by D. Potter example be explicated and restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting down points fundamentall For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamentall because as Nature so God is neither defective in necessaries nor lavish in supersâ—uities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaries or lavish in supersâ—uities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever he saith Though that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniversall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye unrevealea in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth us to understand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to salvation Mark what he saith That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the universall Church but by all truth is not understood simply all but all apperraining to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamentall so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universall infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himselfe How many truths lye unrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearfull consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all points by her proposed as divine truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14 All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no fundamentall error yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonicall the whole canon is made doubtfull and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15 I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some points we could not believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes of any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I adde that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend Por if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamentall as in
the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary maketh it of equall necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Salvatioâ— And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton The Reader may be pleased to approue or reject it as he shall finde cause And in another place he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his book he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but â—s indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian like jesting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall Errours But contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to proue that even the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation Divers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Errour in the matter and the nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatâ—â— And yet many Protestants are so farre from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall errour that themselves goe further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no â—rue Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you have any such meanes why doe you not agree You tell us the Creed containes all points fundamentallâ— which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the begining of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths whereof consists the Vâ—â—ty of faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the sole Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation You fall heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamentall points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in ill part if we againe and againe demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you and doe here deliver a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under paine of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another minde all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20 For euen out of your own doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behoves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point yet even according to D. Potter the errour cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of faith and salvation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universall Church Secondly since she is under paine of eternall damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibilitie I cannot in wisedome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be affraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point least perhaps that point or points wherein I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to salvation Fourthly that visible Church which cannot erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a point necessary to salvation that we believe she cannot erre wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Whereas to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintain any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one unlesse I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed then Gods Church her selfe Or to what Doctour can the Children and Schollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then incleaving to any particular Sâ—ct or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the
all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot doe so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28 Now for your observation that some Bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received for such But never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphall I demand touching the first sort whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall or not If not seeing the whole faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of faith to believe 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 how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the CanoÌ„ of Scripture which hath suffered some Bookes of Canonicall Scripture to be lost others to loose for a long time their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Post liminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalnesse unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore 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 If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19 And then for the other part of it that never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards question'd or rejected for Apocryphall Certainly it is a bold asseveration but extreamly false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of Saint Iames and to the Heb. were they by the Apostles appoved for Canonicall or no If not with what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrine is Apostolicall Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rationall discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you doe so then I shall be bold to aske you what bookes you meant in saying before Some bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received Then for the book of Macchabes I hope you will say it was defin'd for Canonicall before S. Gregories time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it after this manner Concerning which matter we doe not amisse if we produce a testimony out of Bookes although not Canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonicall is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctuall as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant keeper of Scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and question'd by Sixtus If different from both then was it question'd and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonicall had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly your flying to such poor signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better arguments and that thus to catch at shadowes and bulâ—ushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 30 Ad § 13. We are told here That the generall promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points fundamentall Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in forme and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentalls Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and writing may be limited to Fundamentalls as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answere that if by may be as well in the major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as iustly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentalls so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may doe it de facto but de iure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom
that All which they were led into was not simply All otherwise S. Paul erred in saying we know in part but such an All as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations Now such they could not be without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths For if we once suppose they may haue erred in some things of this nature it will be utterly undiscernable what they haue erred in what they haue not Whereas though wee suppose the Church hath err'd in somethings yet we haue meanes to know what she hath err'd in and what she hath not I mean by comparing the Doctrine of the present Church with the doctrine of the Primitiue Church delivered in Scripture But then last of all suppose the Doctor had said which I know he never intended that this promise in this place made to the Apostles was to bee understood only of a Truth absolutely necessary to salvation Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not Infallible in points not fundamentall Doe you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Dr saies no more was promised in this place Therefore he saies no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 34 But if the Apostles were Infallible in all things propos'd by them as Divine Truths the like must be affirm'd of the Church because Doctor Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church True hee does so but not in so absolute a manner Now what is oppos'd to Absolute but limited or restrained To the Apostles then it was made to them only yet the words are true of the Church And this very promise might haue been made to it though here it is not They agree to the Apostles in a higher to the Church in a lower sense to the Apostles in a more absolute to the Church in a more limited sense To the Apostles absolutely for the Churches direction to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction and so farre as she doth adhere to it In a word the Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truth by the Apostles writings sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fitly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the finger of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wise men were led by the Starre to Christ led by it I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose So was it between the Apostles writing Scriptures the Church They in their writing were Infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth but what was so The Church is also led into all Truth but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings But it is as the Wisemen were led by the Starre or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercuriall statue or as a Pilot by his Card and Compasse led sufficiently but not irresistibly led so that she may follow not so that she must For seeing the Church is a society of men whereof every one according to the Doctrine of the Romish Church hath freewill in believing it follows that the whole aggregate has freewill in believing And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible that of so many wâ—ereof all may belieue aright not any should doe so I answer It is true if they did all giue themselues any liberty of judgement But if all as the case is here captivate their understandings to one of them all are as likely to erre as that one And he more likely to erre then any other because hee may erre and thinks he cannot because he conceiues the Spirit absolutly promis'd to the succession of Bishops of which many haue been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue because he seeth him not neither knoweth him Besides let us suppose that neither in this nor in any other place God had promised any more unto them but to lead them into all Truth necessary for their own other mens salvation Does it therefore follow that they were de facto led no farther God indeed is oblig'd by his Veracity to doe all that hee has promised but is there any thing that binds him to doe no more May not he be better then his word but you will quarrell at him May not his Bounty exceed his Promise And may not we haue certainty enough that oftimes it does so God did not promise to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon any more then what he askt which was wisdome to govern his people and that he gaue him But yet I hope you will not deny that we haue certainty enough that he gaue him something which neither God had promised nor he had asked If you doe you contradict God himselfe For Behold saith God because thou hast asked this thing I haue done according to thy word Loe I haue given thee a Wise and an Vnderstanding heart so that there was none like thee before thee neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee And I haue also given thee that which thou hast not asked both riches and honour so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy dayes God for ought appeares never oblig'd himselfe by promise to shew S. Paul those Vnspeakable mysteries which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him and yet I hope we haue certainty enough that he did so God promises to those that seek his Kingdome and the righteousnesse thereof that all things necessary shall be added vnto them and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to doe no more and if hee giue them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meere necessity So though God had obliged himselfe by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility onely in things necessary to salvation neverthelesse it is utterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more then by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to doe or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them especially when he himselfe both by his word and by his works hath assured us that he did assist them farther You see by this time that your chaine of feareful consequences as you call them is turned to a rope of sand and may easily bee avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposalls 35 Ad § 14. 15. Doubting of a Book receaved for Canonicall may signifie either doubting whether it be Canonicall or supposing
it to be Canonicall whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then againe distinguish of the terme received For it may signify either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Vniversall or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not tâ—â—e A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Vniversall Church of this present time whether it be Canonicall or no and yet haue just reason to belieue no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonicall As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to doe so If by Received you meant Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book has as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book and yet not of all because it is possible men may doe not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible supposition believes it not to be true if he will doe according to reason must doubt of all the rest and belieue none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true then because God hath said it nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies and therefore if he will doe according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he saies And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall and not confin'd to points fundamentall 36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall you confesse to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church For say you unlesse shee be Infallible in all things we cannot belieue her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not Infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing because you know that you are not Infallible in all things Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therefore must either doe unreasonably in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books If you mean still as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Vniversall Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence iâ—â—he Argument then in this The Divell is not infallible therefore if he saies there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometritian is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which the domonstrates M. Knot is not Infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37 But though the reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrine of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamentall and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it err'd not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their beliefe that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only points are Fundamentall For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture saies that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it selfe can have no foundation but the Vniversall truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamentall truth presupposes to be a truth now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth on a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture saies so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamentall truth 33 Ad § 16. To this Parag. I answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she saies yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or universall Tradition be it Fundamentall or be it not Fundamentall This you say we cannot in points not Fundamentall because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamentall Again you say we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls because we must know what points be Fundamentall before we goe to learn of her Not so but I must learn of the Church or of some part of the Church or I
Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it followes not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seemes repugnant Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it yet happily if may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all to deal ingeniously with you and the World I am not such an Idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this dore as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Vniversall of some time and the Church Vniversall of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrine so beleived or the custome so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own opinions but as Apostolike Traditions And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian Quicunque traditor any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the direction then was Precepta maâ—orum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible Not therefore in her universall Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this point when you speak you shall have an answer but hitherto you doe but wander 46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many workes which our Saviour did which S. Iohn supposes would not have been contained in a world of bookes if they had been written or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitly more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinall Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alleaged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet were afterwards written and in other bookes of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist which was never written that he laies this iniunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist But what if they did not performe their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the
but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the Essentiall part of Christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it at this time I haue no leasure to doe you curtesies that are so troublesome to my selfe Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of what I conceiue Fundamentall with the other For as yet I see no such faire proceeding as you talke of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which heâ—e you haue given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet compos'd of one ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouthes with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you haue not perform'd what you require For if to set down such a PropositioÌ„ wherein are compriz'd all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serue you insteed of a Catalogue you shall haue Catalogues enough As we are oblig'd to belieue all under pain of damnation which God commands us to belieue There 's one Catalogue We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue Gods word all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods word Then I beseech you doe us reason and giue us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposalls without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to if you receiue not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will giue you leaue to proclaim us Banckrupts 54 Besides this deceitfull generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we finde with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the clouds giue me leaue to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they bee I would know what you esteem the Proposalls of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposall Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councell without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging proposall or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtfull who is Pope Whether the Decree of a generall Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a Proposall and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a proposall Whether the Generall uncondemn'd practise of the Church for some ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any age agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a doctrine or practise to be Tradition or to bee the Doctrine or practise of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to belieue every Text of the vulgar Bible now authoriz'd by the Roman Church to bee the true translation of the Originalls of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived wheÌ„ the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholique visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and oportunity be not bound to endeavour to know explicitely the Proposalls of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not saue him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually belieues some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can haue that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans salvation as well as implicit faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you meane all that ever she propos'd or that only which she now proposeth and whether shee now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonicall Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and propos'd as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under paine of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. Iames and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonicall at least not to disbelieve it believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans salvation to use the best meanes he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you haue given faire and ingenuous answers you shall heare further from me 55 Ad
instruction acquaint the universall Church with my particular scruples You say the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably It remaines then that for my necessary instruction I must repaire to every particular member of the universall Church spread over the face of the earth and yet you teach that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique with which as I said it is impossible for me to confer Alas O most uncomfortable Ghostly Father you driue me to desperation How shall I confer with every Christian soule man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet upon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith before I haue the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely Procure will you say to knew whether he belieue all fundamentall points of faith For if he doe his faith for point of beliefe is sufficient for salvation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether hee hold all fundamentall points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretiques But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith Are you sure of that not sure I hold it very probable Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contain all points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else doe further extend to practise No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to salvation Sâ—ll you chalk our new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall finde that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell us what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet unlesse you doe this your Doctrine serues only either to make men despaire or else to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and which giue one certain Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation And seeing your selfe acknowledges that these men doe not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soule and the avoiding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I haue made are either your own direct Assertions or evident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20 But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which wee haue said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21 This answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needlesse that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needlesse to expresse all necessary points of faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Books in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tells us that the Creed is an Abstraâ—â— of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speak the same truth 22 And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needlesse that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needlesse to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we doe not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of divine authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Booksâ— not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answer grants as much as we desire which is that all points of faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing
the Apostles Creed as not being their Creed in any sense but onely a part of it To this you answer § 2 5. Vpon the same affected ambignity c. Answ. It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question But whether all the points of simple beliefe which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed be not contained in it And if thus much at least of Christian Religion bee not comprized in it I again desire you to inform me how it could be call'd the Apostles Creed 74 Foure other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose grounded upon the practise of the Ancient Church The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book But to the rest drawne from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple beliefe only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptisme and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you haue not for ought I can perceaue thought fit to make any kind of answer 75 The difficulties of the 27. and last § of this Chapter haue been satisfied So that there remaines unexamined onely the 26. Section wherein you exceed your selfe in sophistry Especially in that trick of Cavillers which is to answer objections by other objections an excellent way to make controversies endlesse D. Potter desires to be resolved Why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed and bee altogether silent of others In stead of resolving him in this difficulty you put another to him and that is Why are some points not Fundamentall expressed in it rather then other of the same quality Which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt that it makes it more intricate For upon this ground it may be demanded How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary and put in others not necessary especially if their intention were as you say it was to deliver in it such Articles as were fittest for those times Vnlesse which were wondrous strange unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times then necessary But now to your Question the Answer is obvious These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary Pontius Pilate of Christs Passion The third day of the Resurrectiō neither doth the adding of thē make the Creed ever a whit the lesse portable the lesse fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might bee left out Besides who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation And therefore not so great a fault nor deserving such a censure as the omission of any thing essentiall to the work undertaken and necessary to the end proposed in it 76 You demand again as it is no hard matter to multiply demands why our Saviours descent to Hell and Buriall was expressed and not his circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings and working of Miracles I answer His Resurrection Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles and they are expressed Besides S. Iohn assures us That the Miracles which Christ did were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed but for a farther end that we might believe that Iesus was the Christ and believing haue eternall life He therefore that belieues this may be saved though he haue no explicite and distinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did His Circumcision Manifestation to the Wise men for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings are neither things simply necessary to be known nor haue any neer relation to those that are so As for his Descent into Hell it may for ought you know be put in as a thing necessary of it selfe to be known If you ask why more then his Circumcision I refer you to the Apostles for an answer who put that in and left this out of their Creed and yet sure were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime principall foundation of the faith which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus Cont. 2. c. 10. num 10. Likewise his Buriall was put in perhaps as necessary of it selfe to be known But though it were not yet hath it manifestly so neer relation to these that are necessary his Passion Resurrection being the Consequent of the one and the Antecedent of the other that it is no marvell if for their sakes it was put in For though I verily belieue that there is no necessary point of this nature but what is in the Creed yet I doe not affirme because I cannot prove it that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary You demand thirdly Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamentall points of faith tending to practise as well as those which rest in Beliefe I answer Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary points which rest in beliefe which appeares because of practicall points there is not in it so much as one 77 D. Potter subjoynes to what is said aboue That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us beleeve we have all when we have not all This consequence you deny and neither give reason against it nor satisfie his reason for it which yet in my judgment is good and concluding The Proposition to be proved is this That if your Doctrine were trve this short Creed I beleeve the Roman Church to be infallible would have been better that is more effectuall to keep the beleevers of it from Heresie and in the true faith then this Creed which now we have A proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your Religion or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to adde some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of these severall supposed Creeds 78 The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the beleevers of it An impossibility of being in any formall Heresie A necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all Errourin faith or materiall Heresie which certainly you will not denie or if you doe you pull downe the only pillar of your Church and Religion and denie that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book 79 The latter Creed which now we have is so un-effectuall for these good purposes that you your self tell
us of innumerable grosse damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the beleife of this Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefes that it is more likely to ensnare thē into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith which is apt as experience shewes to mis-guide men into this pernitious errour That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they doe not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed propos'd by me I believe the Roman Church to be infallible if your doctrine be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrine be true would without controversie be better then the latter 80 But say you by this kind of arguing one might inferre quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to Salvation what need have wee of any Church to teach us And consequently what need of the Article of the Church To which I answer that having compared your inference and D. Potter together I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them nor any shew of Reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it unnecessary As well for ought I understand you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary therefore there is no need to believe in God Neither does it follow so well as D. Potters argument followes That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherein are added divers other Particulars are superfluous For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary These therefore are poor consequences but no more like D. Potters then an apple is like an oister 81 But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us newes and pretend to grant it But what is that which you mean to grant That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church Or that if they had done so they had done better then now they have done This is D. Potters inference out of your Doctrine and truly if you should grant this this were newes indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus farre that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no newes at all that you should grant that which you would fain have granted to you So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should profer me a curtesy and pretend that he would oblige himselfe by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and in stead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subscribe to it and be thankfull Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberall 82 You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things necessary Ergo It is not Profitable Or the Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo She must teach us without meanes These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potters book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrine were true another and a farre shorter Creed would have been more expedient even this alone I believe the Roman Church to be infallible But why you should conclude he makes this Creed unprofitable because he saies another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he laies a necessity upon the Church of teaching without meanes or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtill that I cannot apprehend them To my understanding by those words And sent us to the Church for all the rest he does rather manifestly imply that the rest might be very well not only profitable but necessary and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds or Catechismes or Councells or any other meanes which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not choose amisse 83 Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which followes that the Apostles if your doctrine be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we haue if insteed thereof they had commanded in plain termes that for mens perpetuall direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to haue taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not haue taught it us This therefore I doe not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they haue written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrine which they did preach and done all otherthings as they have done besides the composing their Symbole◠I say if your doctrine were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never compos'd their Symbole which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so But insteed thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith 84 Whereas you say If we will belieue we haue all in the Creed whē we haue not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell
to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leaue your company in these ill courses and I doe well to doe so because you are my Brother so making that the cause of his leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75 But you say The very reason for which hee acquitteth himselfe from Schisme is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ. Ans. This is true But can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawfull matter to his lawfull Soveraign should say to him herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebell because I acknowledge you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawfull should not he be an egregious sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawfull Soveraign Certainly hee that joynes this acknowledgment with his necessitated disobedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience doth ill Vrge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceiue that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to bee the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allowes you to be a Part of it 76 And whereas you pretend to finde such unspeakable comfort here in that we cannot cleare our selues from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too deare For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damne men for errour who were without their owne fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who haue eyes to see and will not see who haue cares to heare and will not heare this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperatly inconsistent Nor to say wee must be damn'd unlesse you may be saved but that we assure our selues if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that wee hope and I tell you again Spes est reiincertae nomen that some of you may possibly bee the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77 For our Brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that doe so unlesse you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you doe then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78 But Schisme consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must professe you agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans. Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamentall points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schisme divide from that Church which erres in any point of faith Fundamentall or otherwise if she require the profession of this Errour among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the latter I deny the syllogisme as having manifestly foure termes and being cosen German to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79 But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which haue understanding means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to bee flattered with hope of salvation they doe cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques But D. Potter doth the former therefore is a Schismatique Ans. No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and meanes to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80 Ad § 28. 29. Whereas D. Potter saies There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves this you â—ay is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme and sinne may be as well excused It seems then in your judgement that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reforme themselves But then me thinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schisme and that to this day never any Theefe or Murtherer should haue been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himselfe was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up altar against altar because having fallen in persecutioÌ„ they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the world because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused onely and not convicted to haue been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips infirmity of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order Ceremony or for some errour in doctrine neither pernitious nor hurtfull to faith or piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are
not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extreme impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelihood as they that they did not separate from others but only reforme themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schisme from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same words as any Rebell that makes conscience the cloake of his impious disobedience may say with S. Peter and S. Iohn we must obey God rather then men But then the question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this question you say just nothing but conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should haue said S. Peter and S. Iohn did ill to make such an answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and Rebellion against the lawfull commands of lawfull Authority 81 But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions their Reformation of themselves and their dividivision from you falls out to be one and the same thing Iust as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenesse one of them should turne sober this Reformation of himselfe and disertion of his companion in this ill custome would be one and the same thing and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all or his society in other things So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions which were common to them with you could not choose but withall forsake you in the practice of these corruptions yet this they might and would have done without breach of Charity towards you and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion confessedly lawfull And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at was not a separation from you but a reformation of themselves 82 Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation which yet when you measure it without partiality you will find to be farre short of infinite nor their symbolizing in the generall of forsaking your corruptions prove any thing to the contrary or any way advantage your designe or make for your purpose For it is not any signe at all much lesse an evident signe that they had no setled designe but only to forsake the Church of Rome for nothing but malice can deny that their intent at least was to reduce Religion to that originall purity from which it was fallen The declination from which some conceiving to have begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to have shewed it selfe more openly others again believing that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles then declined And consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times Others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condicion of the fourth fifth ages Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the Decrees of Councells of the first five Ages certainly it is no great marveile that there was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholique written Tradition which rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow 83 Ad § 30. 31. 32. To this effect D. Potter p. 81. 82. of his book speaks thus If a Monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not In this case could it be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order So in a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from it could they be therefore said to separate from the society He presumes they could not and from hence concludes that neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme that is separating from the Church and making themselves no members of it if all they did was as indeed it was to reforme themselves Which cases I believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of Reason and that therefore the Argument drawn from them is pressing and un-answerable And it may well be suspected that you were partly of this mind otherwise you would not have so presum'd upon the simplicity of your Reader as pretending to answer it to put another of your own making in place of it and then to answer that 84 This you doe § 31. 32. of this Chapter in these words I was very glad to find you in a Monastery c. Where I beseech the Reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation First That you have no Reason to say That you found D. Potter in a Monastery and as little that you find him inventing waies how to forsake his vocation and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church and Apostacy from a Religious Order Certainly the innocent case put by the Doctor of a Monastery reforming it selfe hath not deserved such grievous accusations Vnlesse Reformation with you be all one with Apostacy and to forsake sinne and disorder be to forsake ones vocation And surely if it be so your vocations are not very lawfull and your Religious orders not very religious Secondly that you quite pervert and change D. Potters cases and in stead of the case of a whole Monastery reforming it selfe when other Monasteries of their Order would not and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their society when others would not you substitute two others which you thinke you can better deale with of some particular Monkes upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monasticall observances going out of their Monastery which Monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantiall Vowes and all Principall Statutes And of a diseased Person quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease though in their company there was no danger from his
way or other but also to disbelieve that is to believe the contrary of that which Faith proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnesse This obscurity of faith we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse in a dark manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter saith Which you doe well attending unto as to a Candle shining in a dark place 3 Faith being then obscure whereby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certain and infallible wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion it must relie upon some motive and ground which may be able to give it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motive ground or formall Object of Faith were any thing evidently presented to our understanding and if also we did evidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we believe our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but evident which as we said is against the nature of our Faith If likewise the motive or ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us but were not in it selfe infallible it would leave our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therefore for the ground of our Faith find out a motive obscure to us but most certain in it selfe that the act of faith may remaine both obscure and certain Such a motive as this can be no other but the divine authority of almighty God revealing or speaking those truths which our faith believes For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our faith and yet not draw it out of obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can evince that God revealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had beene no lesse perfect then he is although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe 4 Neverthelesse because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnesse doth concurre with his Creatures in such sort as may be fit the temper exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endued with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle saith rationabile obsâ—â—uium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoned to believe with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain And therâ—fore Almighty God obliging us under paine of eternall damnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot saylâ— to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motives and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the objects which we believe proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceived so Good that it cannot deceive according to the words of David Thy Testimonies are made credible exceedingly These inducements are by Divines called argumeÌ„ta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome prudence the objects of â—aith deserve credit ought to be accepted as things revealed by God For without such reasons inducemeÌ„ts our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent holy Scripture telling us that he who soone believes is light of heart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility and the objects of faith retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to bee evidently credible and evidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wroughâ— by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not evidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not been Faith but Science and all had been necessitated to believe which we see fell out otherwise but they were evidently convinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths revealed by God 5. These evident Arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetually existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we have from our next Predecessours and these from theirs upward till we come to the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour which gradation is knowne by evidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man delivers to another And it is evident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in private ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves as ancient Tertullian well saith How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith Among many events there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs have varied But that which among many is found to be One is not mistaken but delivered Dare then any body say that they erred who delivered it With this never interrupted existence of the Church are joyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories over so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought up to the Apostles themselves she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the divine Certainty which they received from our Blessed Saviour himselfe revealing to Man-kind what he heard from his Fatheâ— and so we conclude with Tertullian We receive it from the Churches the Churches from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by meanes of holy Tradition we cannot conjoyn the present Church and doctrine with the Church and doctrine of the Apostles but must invent some new meanes and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out and prove a true Church and faith independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition as is truely observed by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that there is no meanes to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Church which they founded 6 Thus then we are to proceed By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath alwaies been a never-interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles time believing professing and practising such and such doctrines By evident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sancâ—â—ty Vnity c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour
communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustine 〈◊〉 a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saithâ— Here did he first attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest then he who should affirme that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so farre diffused as the Sect of the Douâ—tists I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's owne phrase wherein he is lesse excusable then they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duely ponder these words of S. Augustine against the Dâ—â—atists If I persecute him iustly who detracts from his Neighbour why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith this is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist who wrote against Pâ—rmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you doe even in this your Book writ against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zeloâ—s among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come not into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universall For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an hart so extreamly absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Tiâ—onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained vnited not with them who were divided from the communion and vnity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticoâ—us maintained then by yeelding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enioyed the Communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But thesâ— and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let passe and only vrge the main point That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O bâ—asphemy◠〈◊〉 Harlot Moreover the same heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresy and damnable whether the matter bee otherwise of it selfe great or small And how can the Church more truely be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore cleere that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse then the Donatists who saâ—d that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for along space before Luther she was no where at all But let us goe forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. Iohâ— They went out from us And Some who went out from us And Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise well knowne that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way lyable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating with the universall Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which like-likewise is no lesse cleerely proved out of S. Cypriâ—n saying Not we g departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsakeâ— the head and origen of Truth 19 And that we might not remain doubtfull what separation it is which is the marke of Heresy the ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it
is from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of Peter And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us because we say and write that the Church of Rome in that sense as she is the Mother Church of all others and with which all the rest agree is truly called the Catholique Church S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And elsewhere Which doth he call his faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Bookes of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who have translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet farther Know thou that the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath once been preached S Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thankes for his delivery from shipwrack saith he called unto him the Bishop neither did he esteeme any favour to be true except that of the true faith and he asked of him whether he agreed with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Roman Church And having understood that he was a Schismatique that is separated from the Roman Church he abstained from communicating with him Where we see the priviledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed by doctrine and practice And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church From thence the Rights of Venerable Communion doe flow to all S. Cyprian saith They are bold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung Neither doe they consider that they are Romans whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have accesse Where we see this holy Father joynes together the principall Church and the Chaire of Peter and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had but cannot have accesse to that Sea And elsewhere Thou wrotest that I should send a Coppy of the same letters to Cornelius our Collegue that laying aside all solicitude he might now be assured that thou didst Communicate with him that is with the Catholique Church What think you M. Doctor of these words Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church S. Ireneus saith Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition and faith preached to men and comming to us by Tradition of the most great most ancient and most known Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of theÌ„selves or vain glory or by blindnes or ill Opinion doe gather otherwise thâ— they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Ch. the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where S. Augustine saith It grieves us to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whom She is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell doe not overcome And in another place speaking of Caecilianus he saith He might contemne the conspiring multitude of his Enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes florish and to other Countries from whence the Gospell came first into Africa Ancient Tertullian saith If thou be neere Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is neere at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles haue powred all Doctrine together with their blood S. Basill in a letter to the Bishop of Rome â—aith In very deed that which was given by our Lord to thy Piety is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee Blessed to wit that thou maist discern betwixt that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution mayest preach the Faith of our Ancestors Maximinianus Bishop of Constantinâ—ple about twelue hundred yeares agoe said All the bounds of the earth who haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true Faith look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome as upon the sunne c. For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world elected him he speaks of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chaire of Doctour to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of Priviledge that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing may hauâ— recourse to the Oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople more then eleven hundred yeares agoe in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because the beginning of salvation is to conserue the rule of right Faith and in no wise to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the Sea Apostolicall the Catholique Religion is alwaies conserved inviolable And again We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serue to shew that both the Latin and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique to haue been united or divided from the Sea of Rome And I haue purposely alleaged only such Authorities of Fathers as speak of the privileges of the Sea of Rome as of things permanent and depending on our Saviours promise to S Peter from which a generall rule and ground ought to be taken for all Ages because Heaven and Earth shall passe but the word of our Lord shall remain for ever So that I here conclude that seeing it is manifest that Luther and his followers divided themselues from the Sea of Rome they beare the inseparable Mark of Heresie 20 And though my meaning be not to treat the point of
what a man is you should define him A Reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astronomers and therefore Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may believe aright which are not wise I could wish with all my heart as Moses did that all the Lords people could Prophesy That all that believe the true Religion were able according to S. Peters injunction to give a reason of the hope that is in them a reason why they hope for eternall happinesse by this way rather then any other neither doe I think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities if they would give their minde to it might quickly be enabled to doe so But should I affirme that all true Believers can doe so I suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty as it is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they which cannot doe so either are not at all or to no purpose true believers And thus wee see that the foundations you build upon are ruinous and deceitfull and so unfit to support your Fabrick that they destroy one another I come now to shew that your Arguments to prove Protestants Heretiques are all of the same quality with your former grounds which I will doe by opposing cleere and satisfying Answers in order to them 11 Ad § 13. To the first then delivered by you § 13. That Protestants must be Heretiques because they opposed divers Truths propounded for divine by the Visible Church I Answer It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ. 2. The Doctrines which Protestants opposed were not Truths but plain and impious falshoods Neither thirdly were they propounded as Truths by the Visible Church but only by a Part of it and that a corrupted Part. 12 Ad § 14. The next Argument in the next Particle tell us That every error against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresy Now either Protestants or the Roman Church must erre against the word of God But the Roman Church we grant perforce doth not erre damnably neither can she because she is the Catholique Church which we you say confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must erre against Gods word and consequently are guilty of formall Heresy Whereunto I answer plainly that there be in this argument almost as many falshoods as assertions For neither is every error against any Doctrine revealed by God a damnable Heresy unlesse it be revealed publiquely plainly with a command that all should beleeve it 2. D. Potter no where grants that the Errors of the Roman Church are not in themselves damnable though he hopes by accident they may not actually damne some men amongst you and this you your selfe confesse in divers places of your book where you tell us that he allowes no hope of Salvation to those amongst you whom ignorance cannot excuse 3. You beg the Question twice in taking for granted First that the Roman Church is the truly Catholique Church which without much favour can hardly passe for a part of it And againe that the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error of it selfe damnable for it may doe so and still be the Catholique Church if it retain those Truths which may be an antidote against the malignity of this error to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance Lastly though the thing be true yet I might well require some proofe of it from you that either Protestants or the Roman Church must erre against Gods word For if their contradiction be your only reason then also you or the Dominicans must be Heretiques because you contradict one another as much as Protestants and Papists 13 Ad § 15. The third Argument pretends that you have shewed already that the Visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore infalliable from whence you suppose that it followes that to oppose her is to oppose God To which I answer that you have said onely and not shewed that the Visible Church is Iudge of Controversies And indeed how can she be Iudge of them if she cannot decide them And how can she decide them if it be a question whether she be Iudge of them That which is question'd it selfe cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions and much lesse this question whether it have Authority to judge and decide all questions 2. If she were Iudge it would not follow that she were infallible for we have many Iudges in our Courts of Iudicature yet none infallible Nay you cannot with any modesty deny that every man in the world ought to judge for himselfe what Religion is truest and yet you will not say that every man is infallible 3. If the Church were supposed Infallible yet it would not follow at all much lesse manifestly that to oppose her declaration is to oppose God unlesse you suppose also that as she is infallible so by her opposers she is known or believed to be so Lastly If all this were true as it is all most false yet were it to little purpose seeing you have omitted to prove that the Visible Church is the Roman 14 Ad § 16. In stead of a fourth Argument this is presented to us That if Luther were an Heretique then they that agreed with him must be so And that Luther was a formall Heretique you endeavour to prove by this most formall Syllogisme To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresy But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall Therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresy Whereunto I Answer first to the first part that it is no way impossible that Luther had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false Doctrine as he was not might have been a formall Heretique and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly and indeed no Heretiques Your own men out of S. Augustine distinguish between Haeretici Haereticorum sequaces And you your selfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Arrians formall Heretiques yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull whether these Arrians who in simplicity followed their Teachers might not be excused by ignorance And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended for you neither approve nor condemne it Secondly to the second part I say that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as Metaphysicks and Schoole Divinity you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formall Syllogisme It is even Cosen German to this To denie the Resurrection is properly an Heresie But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall Therefore it cannot be excused from
formall Heresie Or to this To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresie But the preaching of the Gospell at the beginning was not Vniversall therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresie For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not denie the Resurrection so may he also not denie the Churches Vniversality And as the Apostles who preached the Gospell in the beginning did beleeve the Church Vniversall though their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might and did beleeve the Church Universall though his Reformation were but particular I say he did beleeve it Vniversall even in your own sense that is Universall de iure though not defacto And as for Vniversality in fact he beleeved the Church much more Vniversall then his reformation For he did conceive as appeares by your own Allegations out of him that not only the Part reformed was the true Church but also that they were Part of it who needed reformation Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one Thirdly and lastly to the first proposition of this unsyllogisticall syllogisme I answer That to say the true Church is not alwaies defacto universall is so far from being an Heresy that it is a certaine truth knowne to all those that know the world and what Religions possesse farre the greater part of it Donatus therefore was not to blame for saying that the Church might possibly be confin'd to Africk but for saying without ground that then it was so And S. Austine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was then extended farther then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwaies must be so but most palpably mistakē in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth known to all nations which if passion did not trouble you make you forget how lately almost halfe the world was discovered and in what estate it was then found you would very easily see and confesse 15 Ad § 17. In the next Section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists and yet you doe it with as much spight and malice as could well bee devised but in vaine For Lucilla might doe ill in promoting the Sect of the Donatists and yet the Mother and the Daughter whom you glance at might doe well in ministring influence as you phrase it to Protestants in England Vnlesse you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill therefore no woman can doe any thing well or because it was ill done to promote one Sect therefore it must bee ill done to maintaine any 16 The Donatists might doe ill in calling the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of Pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot and yet the state of the Church being altered Protestants might doe well to doe so and therefore though S. Austine might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detracting from the Church and calling her harlot when she was not so yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him as the Application of this place intimates you would if it were in your power plainly shewing that you are a curst cow though your hornes be short seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austines time And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony where you tell us out of Saint Austine that one grand-impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a vile calumny raised against the Catholiques that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar To how many saith S. Austine did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter who said that we put I know not what upon the Altar Our of detestation of the calumny and just indignation against it he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged and therefore by a Rhetoricall figure calls it I know not what But compare with him Optatus writing of the same matter and you shall plainly perceive that this I know not what pretended to be set upon the Altar was indeed a picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church But what answer doe S. Austine and Optatus make to this accusation Doe they confesse and maintaine it Doe they say as you would now It is true we doe set Pictures upon our Altar and that not only for ornament or memory but for worship also but we doe well to doe so and this ought not to trouble you or affright you from our Communion What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise But they to the cōtrary not only deny the crime but abhorre and detest it To litle purpose therefore doe you hunt after these poore shadowes of resemblances between us and the Donatists unlesse you could shew an exact resemblance between the present Church of Rome and the Ancient which seeing by this and many other particulars it is demonstrated to bee impossible that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot and that which was detraction in the Donatists may be in Protestants a just accusation 17 As ill successe have you in comparing D. Potter with Tyconius whom as S. Austin findes fault with for continuing in the Donatists separation having forsaken the ground of it the Doctrine of the Churches perishing so you condemne the Doctor for continuing in their Communion who hold as you say the very same Heresy But if this were indeed the Doctrine of the Donatists how is it that you say presently after that the Protestants who hold the Church of Christ perished were worse then Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa These things me thinkes hang not well together But to let this passe The truth is this difference for which you would faine raise such a horrible dissention between D. Potter and his Brethren if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression They affirming only that the Church perished from its integrity and fell into many corruptions which he derlies not And the Doctor denying only that it fell from its essence and became no Church at all which they affirme not 18 These therefore are but velitations and you would seeme to make but small account of them But the main point you say is that since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was in the Apostles time
of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity that all the Churches that is all the faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostolique Tradition hath been alwaies observed by those who were round about If any man say I have been too bold a Critick in substituting observata instead of conseruata I desire him to know that the conjecture is not mine and therefore as I expect no praise for it so I hope I shall be farre from censure But I would intreat him to consider whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo the Translater of Irenaeus who could hardly speak Latine might not easily mistake and translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservata est instead of observata est Or whether it be not likely that those men which ancienly wrote Books and understood them nor might not easily commit such an error Or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way if it can in Gods name let it if not I hope he is not to be condemned who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense 30 But whether you will have it Observata or Conservata the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus possibly it may be something to Irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way materiall For if the rest be rightly translated neither will Conservata afford you any argument against us nor Observata helpe us to any evasion For though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Heretiques with her tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet hee that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rationall in Irenaeus having to doe with Heretiques who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition I say he will easily perceive that it might be rationall in Iraeneus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit then their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contain'd in it and yet that it may be irrationall in you to urge us who doe not decline Scripture but appeale to it as a perfect rule of faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many wayes repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more generall then it self which gives Testimony to Scripture and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was Vnited with all other Apostolique Churches then now when it is divided from them according to that of Tertullian Had the Churches erred they would have varied but that which is the same in all cannot be errour but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that foureteen hundred yeares may have made a great deale of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though neere the fountain they may retaine their native and unmixt syncerity yet in long progresse cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure may now be corrupt and impure and so this Argument being one of those things which are the worse for wearing might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing Especially considering that Irenaeus plaies the Historian only and not the Prophet and saies only that the Apostolique Tradition had been alwayes there as in other Apostolique Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he saies not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they look not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appeares manifestly out of this book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appeares to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded are for it and Iustine Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time beleeved it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Hereticall and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fiftly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noone that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his time viz that there was one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witnesse of Tradition in generall Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinall Perron to avoyd the stroak of this conuincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
the Popes proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent not as a matter of faith or necessity as it is evident out of Athanasius consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himselfe the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the High Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay men in one kinde to use the Latine service we may very fitly say to him it is better to obey God then men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning methinkes there should be some difference and Polycrates saies no more but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is cleerely inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither the one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend nor can produce any proofe any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though peradventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austine and to the first place out of him where he seemes to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austine himselfe was not but retracts it as uncertain leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he saies it else where of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches nay more from these then from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetuall Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seeme great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrowes and undoes it all againe and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain marke of Heresy or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman then for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might doe that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there in it any thing but this That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account then those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilians enemies this had been litle but something but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospell came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinall Perrons rule is much more to be regarded then his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession touching the great question of Appeales wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell as to decree any African Excommunicate that should appeale to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of faith that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once
whatsoever it be All these Questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the Minor proposition of your former Syllogisme and your proofs of it and I will promise to debate them fairly with you if first you will bring some better proof of the Maior That want of Succession is a certain note of Heresy which for the present remaines both unprov'd and unprobable 40 Ad § 23. The Fathers you say assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I confesse they did urge Tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary and thus farre they agree with you But now see the difference They urg'd it not against all Heretiques that ever should be but against them who rejected a great part of the Scripture for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations So Tertullian not a leafe before the words by you cited Nay they urg'd it against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not bee found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane wholly but by word of mouth And that thereupon Paul also said wee speak wisdome amongst the perfect So Irenaeus in the very next Chapter before that which you alleage Against these men being thus necessitated to doe so they did urge Tradition but what or whose Tradition was it Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine Or if for brevity sake they produce the Tradition of any one Church yet is it apparent that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest Irenaeus Tertullian Origen testifie as much in the words cited and S. Austin in the place before alleaged by mee This Tradition they did urge against these men and in a time in comparison of ours almost contiguous to the Apostles So neare that one of them Irenaeus was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. Iohn the Apostle Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him and the last of them all litle more then an age from them Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration but only as a very probable argument far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it So Tertullian in the place above quoted § 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith it should be should have erred into on faith And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it Now if you having to deale with us who question no Booke of Scripture which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques nay who refuse not to be tryed by your owne Canons your own Translations who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose only except that we will not allow you to be our Iudges if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles a fair time for the purest Church to gather much drosse and corruption and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection which in the Apostles time began to work If I say you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches being now Catholique to it selfe alone and Hereticall to all the rest nay not only with her ancient and originall Traditions but also with her post-nate and introduc'd Definitions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition and all this to decline an indifferent tryall by Scripture under pretence wherein also you agree with the calumnie of the old Heretiques that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition If I say notwithstanding all these differences you will still be urging us with this argument as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have not only that we have no School-Divinity nor Metaphysicks but no Logick or common sense that we are but pictures of men and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain 41 But now suppose I should be liberall to you and grant what you cannot prove that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetuall maâ—k of the true Church I beseech you what will come of it What that want of Succession is a certain signe of an Hereticall company Truly if you say so either you want Logick which is a certain signe of an ill disputer or are not pleas'd to use it which is a worse For speech is a certain signe of a living man yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead for he may be dumb and yet living still and we may have other evident tokens that hee is so as eating drinking breathing moving So though the constant and universall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolique Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great argument of the truth of it yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickednesse be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this argument and yet not want others to iustifie and support it self For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contain'd in Scripture in expresse terms or deducible from it by apparent consequence If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetuall Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie you must not content your self to shew that having it is one signe of truth but you must shew it to be the only signe of it and inseparable from it But this if you be well advis'd you will never undertake First because it is an impossible attempt and then because if you doe it you will marre all for by proving this an inseparable signe of Catholique doctrine you will prove your own which apparently wants it in many points not to be Catholique For whereas you say this Succession requires two things agreement with the Apostles doctrine and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies as your condemning the doctrine of the Chiliasts and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many
to Pappus who has collected out of Bellar their contradictions and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. to Flacius de Sect is controversiis Religionis Papisticae you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants yet jeere and scorne D. Potter as if he offer'd you for a proofe the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius and tell him which is all the answer you vouchsafe him It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius flat Heretiques to prove your many contradictions As if he had proved this with the bare authority the bare judgement of these men which sure he does not but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus And why then might not we say to you Is it not pretty that you bring Breerly as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius to prove the contradictions of Protestants Yet had he been so vain as to presse you with the meere authority of Protestant Divines in any point me thinkes for your own sake you should have pardon'd him who here and in many other places urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments Yet if the authority of your Divines were even Canonicall certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your selfe excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vaine doctrine of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have not ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truthes about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of curtesy wee may suppose this doctrine true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundlesse fancy and that this very weak and inartificiall argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleage for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is quite extirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon D. Potter as if he durst not come near it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main question between us that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motive or rule or a necessary condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large confutation of this vain fancy out of one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Estius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps someone there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a generall readinesse to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some doctrine of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches doctrine doe yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easy but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholsome doctrine the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they doe not erre first experience seemes to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints neverthelesse firmely hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Sonne of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things â—As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist. Moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christs passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection Ioh. 20. Whereupon S. Austine also in his preface upon the 96. Ps. saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternall life and such like other Articles Besides the Iewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Adde hereunto that neither Iewes nor Heretiques seeme to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels It being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts. c. 20. Believest thou the Prophets I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Iewes and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austin seemes to teach in his book De Vnico Baptismo contra Peâ—ilianum c. 3. in these words When a Iew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him Gods good things but his own ill That he believes one God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternall life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he
true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 51 And having thus cryed quittance with you I must intreat you to devise for truly I cannot some answer to this argument which will not serve in proportion to your own For I hope you will not pretend that I have done you injurie in setling your faith upon principles which you disclaim And if you alleage this disparity That you are more certain of your principles then we of ours and yet you doe not pretend that your principles are so evident as we doe that ours are what is this to say but that you are more confident then we but confesse you have lesse reason for it For the evidence of the thing assented to be it more or lesse is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding But then besides I am to tell you that you are here as every where extremely if not affectedly mistaken in the Doctrine of Protestants who though they acknowledge that the things which they beleeve are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute but such as may be perfected and increas'd as long as they walke by faith and not by sight And consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere For you abuse the world them if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles That these particular Books are the word of God for so I think you mean either to be in it self evidently certain or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility evidently credible For they are not so fond as to be ignorant nor so vain as to pretend that all men doe assent to it which they would if it were evidently certain nor so ridiculous as to imagine that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture should by chance find a Bible in his own Language and were able to read it that upon the reading it hee would certainly without a miracle beleeve it to bee the word of God which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible What then doe they affirm of it Certainly no more then this that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation those great moments of reason which may incline him to beleeve the Divine authority of Scripture and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it he shall not chuse but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firme faith and syncere obedience Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speake for all the Rest in his Booke of the truth of Christian Religion which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it and that your Religion is no foundation but rather a scandall and an objection against Christianity He then in the last Chapter of his second book hath these excellent words If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion let such know that as there are variety of things which be true so are there divers waies of proving or manifesting the truth Thus is there one way in Mathematicks another in Physicks a third in Ethicks and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspition of untruth otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history and a great part of the art of Physick together with all dutifulnesse that ought to be between parents and children for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to beleeve so that the very beleef thereof may be imputed to us for obedience should not so evidently appear as those things which are apprehended by sense and plaine demonstration but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith and a perswasion thereof in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate That so the Gospell may be as a touchstone for triall of mens judgments whether they be sound or unsound For seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken have induced so many honest godly and wise men to approve of this Religion it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilfull desires it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours and set at naught other commodities which thing they know they ought to doe if they admit of Christs doctrine and obey what he hath commanded And this is the rather to be noted of them for that many other historicall narrations are approved by them to be true which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority and not by any such strong proofs and perswasions or tokens as doe declare the history of Christ to be true which are evident partly by the confession of those Iewes that are yet alive and partly in those companies and congregations of Christians which are any where to be found whereof doubtlesse there was some cause Lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of Christian Religion and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power therefore the same must be attributed to miracles or if any deny that it came to passe through a miraculous manner this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle may be thought to surpasse any miracle 52 And now you see I hope that Protestants neither doe nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they beleeve as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith Let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants and that it is want of Prudence Touching which point as I have already demonstrated that wisdome is not essentiall to faith but that a man may truly beleeve truth though upon insufficient motives So I doubt not but I shall make good that if prudence were necessary to faith we have better title to it then you and that if a wiser then Solomon were here he should have better reason to beleeve the Religion of Protestants then Papists the Bible rather then the Councell of Trent But let us hear what you can say 53 Ad § 31. You demand then first of all What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth I answer Against God and truth there lyes no presoription and therefore certainly it might be great
no fewer then seven times May you be pleased to look back to your own Book you shall find it so as I have said that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation which when you have observ'd and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate that D. Potters discourses which here you censure would be good and concluding if we did not as we doe not free you from damnable errour I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer is a great supererrogation in point of civility Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you but especially that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly 19 First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potters words § 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austine whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. in Baptisme in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith prove to me likewise that thou hast charity Paralell to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiasticall conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgements of these Fathers even the Donatists though Heretiques and Schismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramentall Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Vnction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in expresse tearmes in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confesse therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestans may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the termes but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither doe you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is univocall that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence overwatching and overruling it may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church doe as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talke vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knowes that this but talke and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant salvation to it unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche 21 Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22 Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist addes no Church no Salvation Ans. You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter His words are Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugite Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church yee people and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteeme very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no Salvation was not D. Potters addition
Authority of defining some of you setling it in the Pope himselfe though alone without a Councell Others in a Councell though divided from the Pope Others only in the conjunction of Councell and Pope Others not in this neither but in the acceptation of the present Church Vniversall Lastly others not attributing it to this neither but only to the perpetuall Succession of the Church of all ages of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defin'd and therefore necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to doe nay cannot doe so upon any firme and sure and infallible foundation THE CONCLVSION ANd thus by Gods assistance and the advantage of a good cause I am at length through a passage rather tireing then difficult arriv'd at the end of my undertaken voyage and have as I suppose made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate readers what in the begining I undertook that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your book wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give mee in your Pamphlet entitled a Direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my answer I finde that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwaies before my eyes and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compasse For first I have not proceeded by a meere destructive way as you call it nor objected such difficulties against your Religion as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerely independent upon the truth of Popery and that on the other side the arguments you urge and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion doe manifestly tend if they be closely and consequently followed to the destruction of all religion and lead men by the hand to Atheisme and impiety whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book but especially in my answer to your direction to N. N. Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes then mine owne to make if it were possible such a discovery and therefore am in good hope that though the musicke I have made be but dull and flat and even downright plain-song yet your curious and criticall eares shall discover no discord in it but on the other side I have charg'd you frequently and very justly with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions and not seldome of the main grounds you build upon and the principall conclusions which you endeavour to maintain which I conceive my selfe to have made apparent even to the â—ye c. 2. § 5. c. 3. § 88. c. 4. § .14 24. c. 5. § 93. c. 6. § 6. 7. 12. 17. c. 7. § 29. and in many other parts of my answer And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things but only so farre as he defends truth neither did D. Potter desire me nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther yet I doe not finde that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment particularly not concerning the infallibility of Gods Church which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentalls because if it should erre in fundamentalls it were not the Church Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith which I know believe as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh blood reveal'd it not unto us but our Father which is in Heaven But now if it were demanded what defence you can make for deserting Ch. Mistaken in the main question disputed between him and D. Potter Whether Protestancy without a particular repentance and dereliction of it destroy Salvation whereof I have convinc'd you I believe your answer would be much like that which Vlysses makes in the Meâ—amorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor that is none at all For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England the Approbation I presume cleeres my book from this imputation And whereas you give me a Caution that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrines which all good Christians believe yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by naturall reason I professe syncerely that I doe not know nor believe that any ground laid by me in my whole Book is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrine or with any verity revealed in the word of God though neuer so improbable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason and if I thought there were I would deale with it as those primitive converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles For the Ep. of S. Iames and those other Books which were anciently controverted and are now received by the Church of England as Canonicall I am so farre from relying upon any Principles which must to my apprehension bring with them the deniall of the authority of them that I my selfe believe them all to be Canonicall For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture my Book is so innocent of it that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine Supernaturall Infallible Faith and Religion I assure my self that if you were ten times more a spider then you are you could suck no poyson from them My heart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the searcher of all hearts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Iesus which I am ready to seale and confirm not with my arguments only but my bloud Now these are directions which you have been pleas'd to give me whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them or out of a desire to make others think so But howsoever I have not to my understanding swarved from them in any thing which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction I have also provided though this were more then I undertook a just and punctuall examination and refutation of your second Part But if you will give your consent am resolv'd to suppresse it and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations First because the discussion of the Controversies entreated of in the first Part if we shall think fit to proceed in it as I for my part shall so long as I have truth to reply will I conceive be sufficient employment for us though wee cast off the burden of those many lesser dispuâ—es which remain behind in the Second And perhaps
the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutuall disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten then for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that sto commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common wealths besides the Lawes written unwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as severall occasions may require 2 That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controversies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be beheved as true and infallible From the Editions and translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Errour From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it and finally from the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that she it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3 The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men understand a Person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to doe all this as the diversity of Controversies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a Kingdome the Iudge hath his rule to follow which are the received Lawes and Customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwaies the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith then the Law would be to end suits if it were given over to the phancy and glosse of every single man 4 This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceived when more then once having stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he addes or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge From hence also it was that though Protestants in their begining affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controversies yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the phrase and said that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controversies A difference without a disparity The holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speaks as a man speaking only Latin can be no better understood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernitious if one should seek to take away all Iudges in the Kingdome upon this nicety that albeit Lawes cannot be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity understood then the Law whereby he speaketh 5 But though some writing were granted to have a priviledge to declare it selfe upon supposition that it were maintained in being and preserved entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserve it selfe nor can complaine or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it syncere and pure 6 And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure us that it selfe were Canonicall and of infallible verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still how it can prove it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a book is Scripture and yet upon this point according to Protestants all other Controversies in faith depend 7 That Scripture cannot assure us that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whom D. Potter ranketh among men of great learning and Iudgement saith of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proveth by the same argument which we lately used saying thus It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it his word For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to give credit â—nto it Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest unlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure us c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth and demonstratively proveth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixt Article Wherein it is said of the Scripture Whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation and concerning their belief and profession of this Article they are particularly examined when they be ordained Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Covell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to us
in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he haue evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be coÌ„tained in holy Scripture How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed who believe the universall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you The will of God is saith he to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine yea though it seeme in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speake Not unlike to this is your doctrine delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many good Cotholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errours therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Hereticall especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unitie in her government to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme or Heresie These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schisme and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concern as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Faith and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were untruely supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a point so often impugned by you 43 It is therefore most evident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by meanes enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our blessed Saviour attentiuely to ponder and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart beat within me and reprehending me obiect against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Doe so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councell should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to doe And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall yet neverthelesse I did retain it in tâ—e Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheame if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge If Carolostadius
Luthers of spring was the Divell who but himself must be his damme Is Almighty God wont to send such furies to preach the Gospell And yet further which makes most directly to the point in hand Luther in his Book of abrogating the Private Masse exhorts the Augustine Friers of Wittemberg who first abrogated the Masse that even against their conscience accusing them they should persist in what they had begun acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like And Ioannes Mathesius a Lutheran Preacher saith Antonius Musa the Parish Priest of Rocklitz recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor he meanes Luther that he himself could not believe what he preached to others And that D. Luther answered praise and thanks be to God that this happens also to others for I had thought it had happened only to me Are not these conscionable and fit Reformers And can they be excused from Schisme under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the Roman Church If then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience what will become of Luther who against his conscience persisted in his division from the Roman Church 44 Some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit that they forsooth are not guilty of sinne Because they were not the first Authors but only are the continuers of the Schisme which was already begunne 45 But it is hard to believe that any man of judgment can think this excuse will subsist when he shall come to give up his finall accompt For according to this reason no Schisme will be damnable but only to the Beginners Whereas contrarily the longer it continues the worse it growes to be and at length degenerates to Heresy as wine by long keeping growes to be Vineger but not by continuance returnes again to his former nature of wine Thus S. Augustine saith that Heresy is Schisme in veterate And in another place We obiect to you only the crime of Schisme which you have also made to become Heresy by evill persevering therein And S. Hierom saith Though Schisme in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be defferent from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not feigâ—e to it self some Heresy that it may seem to haue departed from the Church upon iust cause And so indeed it falleth out For men may begin â—poÌ„ passioÌ„ but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their Schisme as lawfull they fall into some Heresy without which their Separation could not be justified with any colour as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawfull to continue a Schisme unlawfully begun is an error against the main principle of Christianity that it is not lawfull for any Christian to live out of Gods Church within which alone Salvation can be had Or that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees according to the words of our Saviour If he shall not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican And He that despiseth you despiseth mee We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus that both he and all those other who continued in the Schisme begun by Majorinus did inherit their Forefathers Schisme and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Majorinus in his Sea and did not begin but only continue the Schisme For saith this holy Father Caecilianus went not out of Majorinus thy Grand-Father but Majorious from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chaire thou fittest which before Majorinus Luther had no beginning Seing it is evident that these things passed in this manner that for example Luther departed from the Church and not the Church from Luther it is cleere that you be HEIRES both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned and of SCHISMATIQVES And the Regall Power or example of Heâ—ry the Eight could not excuse his subjects from Schisme according to what we have heard out of S. Crysostome saying Nothing doth so much provoke the wrath of Almighty God as that the Church should be divided Although we should doe innumerable good deeds if we divide the full Ecclesiasticall Congregation we shall be punished no lesse then they who did rend his naturall Body for that was done to the gaine of the whole world though not with that intention but this hath â—o good in it at all but that the greatest hurt riseth from it These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but to such also as are governed by them Behold therefore how liable both Subjects and Superiours are to the sinne of Schisme if they breake the unity of Gods Church The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more then in this of which we speak They who doe such things are worthy of death and not only they that doe them but they also that consent with the doers In things which are indifferent of their own nature Custome may be occasion that some act not well begun may in time come to be lawfully continued But no length of Time no Quality of Persons no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawfull and therefore division from Christs mysticall body being of the number of those Actions which Divines teach to be intrinsecè malas evill of their own nature and essence no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawfull D. Potter saith There neither was nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe And who dares say that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ Prescription cannot in conscience runne when the first beginner and his Successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed for example goods or lands were unjustly possessed at the first Christians are not like straies that after a certain time of wandring from their right home fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soile but as long as they retaine the indelible Character of Baptisme and live upon earth they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to Gods Church Humane Lawes may come to nothing by discontinuance of time but the Law of God commanding us to conserve Vnity in his Church doth still remain The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their paternall right nor can the Grand-child be undutâ—full to his Grand-Father because his Father was unnaturall to his own parent The longer Gods Church is disobeyed the profession of her Doctrine denied her Sacraments neglected her Liturgy condemned her Vnity violated the more grievous the fault growes to be as the longer a man with-holds a due debt or retaines his neighbours goods the greater injustice he commits Constancy in evill doth not extenuate but aggravate the same which by extension of time receiveth increase of strength and addition of greater
of such truths is not damnable Besides who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the usuall fecunditie of errour bring forth others of a higher qualitie such as are pernicious and pestilent and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety Lastly who can say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man by avoiding only Fundamentall Heresies if in the mean time shee bee negligent of others which though they doe not plainly destroy salvation yet obscure and hinder and only not block up the way to it Which though of themselves and immediatly they damne no man yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remisly then they should many defer their repentance many goe on securely in their sinnes so at length are damn'd by means and occasion of these Errours though not for them Such Errours as these though those of the Roman Church be much worse even in themselves damnable and by accident only pardonable yet I say such Errours as these if any Church should tolerate dissemble and suffer them to raign and neglect to reforme them and not permit them to be freely yet peaceably opposed and impugned will any wise man say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man That shee hath with due fidelity dispensed the Gospell of Christ That shee hath done what she could and what she ought What shall we say then if these errours be taught by her and commanded to be taught What if she thunder out her curses against those that will not belieue them What if she rave and rage against them and persecute them with fire sword and all kinds of most exquisite torments Truly I doe much feare that frō such a Church though it hold no errour absolutely unconsistent with salvation the candlestick of God either is already removed or will be very shortly and because she is negligent of profitable truths that she will lose those that are Necessary and because she will not be led into all truths that in short time shee shall bee led into none And although this should not happen yet what mortall man can secure us that not only a probable unaffected ignorance nor onely a meere neglect of profitable truths but also a retchlesse supine negligence manifest contempt Dissimulation Opposition Oppression of them may consist with salvation I truly for my part though I hope very well of all such as seeking all truth finde that which is necessary who endeavouring to free themselves from all Errours any way contrary to the purity of Christianity yet fayle of performance remain in some yet if I did not finde in my selfe a loue and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idlenesse and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters being prepar'd in minde to follow God and God only which way soever he shall lead me If I did not hope that I either doe or endeavour to doe these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining salvation 62 But to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a Church by reason of such errours against which Christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance and for which he neither denies his grace here nor his glory hereafter what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven narrower then Christ left it Ans. It is not For Christ himselfe hath obliged us hereunto He hath forbad us under pain of damnation to professe what we belieue not consequently under the same penalty to leaue that Communion in which we cannot remain without this hypocriticall profession of those things which we are convinc'd to be erroneous But then besides it is here falsely supposed as hath been shewed already that Christ hath not promised assistance to those that seeke it but only in matters simply necessary Neither is there any reason why any Church even in this world should despair of victory over all errors pernitious or noxious provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance depend wholy upon it and be not wanting to it Though a Triumph over all sinne and error that is security that she neither doth nor can erre be rather to be desired then hoped for on earth being a felicity reserved for heaven 63 Ad § 21. But at least the Roman Church is as infallible as Protestants and Protestants as fallible as the Roman Church therefore to forsake the Roman Church for errors what is it but to flit from one erring Society to another Ans. The inconsequence of this Argument is too apparent Protestants may erre as well as the Church of Rome therefore they did so Boyes in the Schooles know that a Posse ad Esse the Argument followes not He is equally fallible who believes twise two to be foure as he that believes them to be twenty yet in this he is not equally deceived and he may be certain that he is not so One Architect is no more infallible then another and yet he is more secure that his work is right and streight who hath made it by the levell then he which hath made it by guesse and by chance So he that forsakes the errors of the Church of Rome and therefore renounceth her communion that he may renounce the profession of her errors though he knowes himselfe fallible as well as those whom he hath forsaken yet he may be certain as certain as the nature of the thing will beare that he is not herein deceived because he may see the Doctrine forsaken by him repugnant to Scripture and the doctrine embraced by him consonant to it At least this he may know that the doctrine which he hath chosen to him seemes true and the contrary which he hath forsaken seemes false And therefore without remorse of conscience he may professe that but this he cannot 64 But we are to remember that according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to erre in Fundamentalls in which any private Reformer may faile therefore there◠was no necessity of forsaking the Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errors Ans. The visible Church is free indeed from all errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them that keep themselves in them by their own voluntary and avoidable fault From such errors which are thus damnable D. Potter doth no where say that the visible Church hath any priviledge or exemption Nay you your selfe teach that he plainly teacheth the contrary and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to Papists then Papists are to Protestants and yet upon this affected mistake your discourse is founded in almost forty places of your
Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to doe it is as secure as the visible Church more secure then your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentalls for it is impossible that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation but his true endeavour to be saved Lastly abiding in your Churches Communion is so farre from securing me or any man from damnable error that if I should abide in it I am certain I could not be saved For abide in it I cannot without professing to believe your entire doctrine true professe this I cannot but I must lye perpetually and exulcerate my conscience And though your errors were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known errors and false hoods is certainly a capitall sinne and of great affinity with the sinne which shall never be forgiven 95 But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamentall And what man of Iudgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans. And yet you your selfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to have some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted requires the beliefe and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement to preferre the better though not simply the best before that which is starke naught To preferre indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therefore though Protestants have some Errors yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor impos'd with such tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to have some corruptions it may well be presum'd that he hath but little judgement For as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamentall it is an affected mistake as already I have often told you 66 Ad § 22. But D. Potter saies it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secur'd from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points Why were not our first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of apernitious greedinesse of more then enough Ans. I have already shewed sufficiently how capitall danger may arise from errors though not fundamentall I adde now that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough according to that of the Gospell to whom much is given of him much shall be required That the same error may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who have meanes and neglect to use them That to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so may be damnable though the error be not so These I presume are reasons enough and enough why the first Reformers might think and justly that not enough for themselves which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough This very Argument was objected to S. Cyprian upon another occasion and also by the British Quartodecimans to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church and by both this very answer was returned and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it 67 But if as the Doctor saies no Church may hope to triumph over all error ti◠she be in heaven then we must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or you must affirme that all Communities may and ought to be forsaken Answ. The Doctor does not say that no Church may hope to be free from all error either pernitious or any way noxious But that no Church may hope to be secure from all error simply for this were indeed truly totriumph over all But then we say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall unlesse it exact withall either a dissimulation of the being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her communion is to be forsaken rather then the sinne of hypocrisy to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such errors there is no necessity because they erre to themselves doe not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their errors 68 But the Church may not be left by reason of sinne therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamentall in as much as both sinne and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven Ans. The reason of the consequence does not appear to mee But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sinne nor errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and injoyne them but if she doe as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather then God leave the Churches communion rather then commit sinne or professe known errors to be divine truths For the Prophet EZechiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sinne and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69 Ad § 23. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches errors could warrant our forsaking of it Not the Quality because we suppose them not Fundamentall Not the number because the foundation is strong enough to support them Ans. Here againe you vainely suppose that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable but to say they are pardonable is indeed to suppose them damnable Secondly though the errors of your Church did not warrant our departure yet your Tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification For this laies necessity on us either to forsake your company or to professe what we know to be false 70 Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we