the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt
he call his Faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet further Ibid. Lib. 3. know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise than it hath once bene preached 24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer First that he writing to Damasus a Pope might be apt to write over-truths An answer not deserving a confutation Secondly you say S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman But this hath bene answered heretofore neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church Pope or Councell excluding that Epistle from the Canon or rejecting any Book of the old or New Testament which was afterward admitted Thirdly you ask How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections when you fly to so farre fetched evasions and your proceeding is inexcusable in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. Part. 2. Chap. 3 N. 30. gives out of Baronius Ann. 357. and Bellarmine De Roman Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. who affirme that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme or any error against Faith but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact and even greater Protestants than you doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra any errour against Faith but only that de facto by force of feare theates banishment and other sufferings he did subscribe against S. Athanasius as S. Peter denied our Saviour without forfeit of his Faith though he failed in the profession thereof our Saviour having saied Oravi pro te Petre vtnon deficiat Fides tua or as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul even after the comming of the holy Ghost and yet I hope you will not denie but that one might haue saied I am in the coÌ„munio of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built vpoÌ„ tkat Rock whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth and the same I say S. Hierom might haue saied of and to Liberius defining as Pope not as failing in fact as a man and we see that both before and after that forced act he was constaÌ„t not only in the true faith which he never lost but also in the profession thereof and what he did by force and feare must no more be imputed to him as Pope than a confession extorted by torture can be of force without a voluntary ratification Our Saviour saied men were to obey the words of the Scribes aÌ„d Pharisees not their deeds Is it not a doctrine of your owne Pag. 144 N. 31. that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain in no part of that which they delivered â—onstantly And certaine it is that Liberius did not make good his subscription if ever he subscribed to an errour but revoked it assoone as he was at liberty and as I may say taken of the Torture as alwaies before he had defended the Catholique truth If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls who will therefore say that he believed or defined Idolary to be Lawfull And vniversally if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions whosoever committs theft murther or any other sinne against the commandements must be condemned for an Heretique as believing theft to be Lawfull Finally if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms ArgumeÌ„t to cosist in this that Damasus was in the right only actually and accidentally the Saint had begged the Question and proved his owne Doctrine to be true because Damasus held with him and that which Damasus held de facto was true though Damasus might erre as other Bishops might whereas it is cleare that S. Hierom as his words express grounds himself vpon that firme and stable Rock of which our Saviour saied Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you â—llie N. 24. for interpreting the words of S. Ambros. 25. For your N. 25.26.27 I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31. whereof see also Bellarm in De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7. where this matter is handled at large And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian being disinterressed and delivering a generall Doctrine and prescriptions against all Heretiques and S. Cyprian speaking in a particular point wherein he was ingaged and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour condemned by the whole Church against the Donatists namely the rebaptization of such as had bene baptized by Heretiques and by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as Charity Maint in the place cited even now shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader in not making a difference betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen and a Definition of Faith which difference you might haue learned in that very place which you cite out of Bellarmine and we haue now alledged In fine all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian seing he was in an errour against Faith and therefore could be excused only by ignorance or pardoned by repentance In vaine N. 26. you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse but should haue sayd to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse But this you say without proofe against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul not of Fidelity and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness or errour contrarie to Faith not of perfidiousness contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity For what congruity is there in this speach The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle therefore perfidiousness or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them as if all who belieue aright must also besincere and vpright honest men Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare that if their Faith be true errour against Faith or falshood cannot be approved by them You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretiques if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome to be infallible for matters of Faith
ground of Protestāts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment mēt I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged ādshew that they are neither evidēt nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them ād the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple ād successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commādemēts ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by
the whole wheresoever it is spred but is found separate in some parte it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation only to belieue that Christ is the sonne of God 64. The example of men of Beroea Act 17. V 11. who were searching the scriptures if these things were so is of no force in many respects First Heere is no least insinuation of any vniversall precept to reade or search the scriptures but only a narratioÌ„ of what those meÌ„ did and if the fact of some may be alledged as a command for all to reade the scriptures why may not the example of others who belieued only by hearing S. Paule and the other Apostles preach and seeing them worke Miracles and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Creâ—â—â—bility be alledged for a command that men should belieue without delaying their conversion till they reade scriptures Secondly they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular Mysteryes of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them which is our question but only that mayne poynt which was preached to them by S. Paule that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you V. 3 other particular poynts they would easily learne by further instruction of the Apostles being once assured in generall that they were persons worthy of all credit and Messengers of God Thirdly The scriptures which they did search were the Bookes of the Old testament in which all the necessary particular poynts of Christian Faith are not evidently contayned since Protestants teach that all necessary poynts are contayned in scripture only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended yea the word searching shewes that euen that article of the true Messias was not evidently contayned in the Old testament but that the finding of it required labour as in the like case I shewed aboue out of S. Chrissostome and others about the word scrutamini search Fourtly Although the search of scriptures and consonance of them with s. Paules wordes might help the conversion of those meÌ„ yet who can doubt but the preaching and viva vox interpretation and explication of scripture alledged vrged and illustrated by S. Paul did also cooperate and operate more then the only reading of scriptures which many did reade and yet were not converted Which shewes their obscurity even in this Fundamentall Article concerning the Messias as we reade Act. 13.27 Not knowing him nor the voyces of the prophets that are read every sabboth And Luc. 24.44.45 it is sayd These are the words which I spake to you when I was with you that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses and the Prophets and the Psalmes of me Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstaÌ„d the scriptures Wherfor the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose vnless it can be proved that they redd the scripture without the assistance of such other meanes as I haue mentioned and that they found theÌ„ so â—â—ident that they needed no other help which certainly is wholy impossible to be proved Even Cartwright in whitg Def. P. 784. confesseth that Vnless the Lord workes miraculously and excraordinarily the bare reading of the scriptures without the preaching caÌ„not deliver so much as one poore sheepe from destruction Therfor scripture is not evident in all necessary Poynts otherwise it might deliver men from destruction Fiftly I say that not only those men had no obligation to read the scripture before they believed S. Paul but as the rhemes testameÌ„t vpon this place wisely observes they were bound to belieue the Apostle aÌ„d obey his word whether he alledged scripture or no or whether they could reade and vnderstand it or no. Therfor this example cannot be alledged to proue that all necessary Poynts of Faith are evident in scripture alone Sixtly This example is wholy impertineÌ„t if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort aÌ„d confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul aÌ„d not by searching the scriptures as Cornelius à Lapide holds and to that purpose alledges the Text itself which sayth V. 11. And these were more noble theÌ„ they that are at Thessalonica who receyved the word with all greediness daily searching the scriptures if these things were so Where first it is sayd they receyved the word and then were searching the scriptures And this also is the judgment of the Rhemes TestameÌ„t 65. Besides the places which I haue answered Protestants are wont to alledg the words of the Apocalyps 22. V. 18.19 I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecie of this Booke If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues writteÌ„ in this book And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life aÌ„d out of the holy citie aÌ„d of these things that be writteÌ„ in this booke But what is this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to reade and seek out of the Apocalyps alone for of it only S. Iohn expressly declares himself to speake all necessary Poynts of Christian Faith or that it contaynes evidently all such points in particular So farr was this sacred booke from having been written for a Catechisme or an entire Rule of Faith that it is a Prophecy or revelation of things to come so hidden and sublime and profound that S. Hierome sayth Tot habet SacrameÌ„ta quot verba Every word is a Mystery The curse which S. John interminates falls vpon such as either would add any thing contrary to this book or corrupt it by fathering on it some apocriphall writing or Revelation or diminish it by some part or which is worst of all quite abolish it as not Canonicall as in old tyme Marcionistae Alogiani Theodosiani as witnesseth Epiphan Lib. 2. Heres 51. did And Erasmus Lutherus Brentius and Kemnitius doe The Author of the Commentary vpon this booke bearing the name of S. Ambrose saith that He curses Heretikes that vsed to add somwhat of their own that was false and to take away other things that were contrary to their Heresyes But God forbid we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawfull Pastours since S. John himself as long as he lived was a Living Rule or Iudg for matters of Faith besides the word written in the Apocalyps or in other Canonicall scripture and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith Yea S. John after the sayd curse adds two verses more and Cornel. a Lapide Quest Proaemialib in Apocalypsim saith it is cleare that S. John wrote the Apocalyps before he wrote the Gospell For this he wrote being retourned from his banishmeÌ„t of Patmos where he wrote the Apocalyps as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script Ecclesiast and Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 24.
and S. Austine and Bede Proaemio in Evangelium S. Ioannis Kemnitius also Exam. Pag. 202. confesses that S. John wrote his Gospell after the Apocalyps And Cornel. a Lapide Proaem in Epist 1. S. Joannis speaking of S. Johns three Epistles sayth It seemes that he wrote them about the same tyme that he wrote the Gospell By which account they were written after the Apocalyps Therfor that curse in the Apocalyps cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude all other writings after it 66. But the chiefest place which Protestants are wont to alledg for the sufficiency of scripture alone is that of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3. V. 16.17 All scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke I answer First Speaking in rigour Profitable Necessary sufficient are things both different and separable A thing may be profitable and not necessary and a thing may be both profitable and necessary for some effect and yet not sufficient alone to produce it Every line in Gods word is profitable but not every line is either necessary or sufficient Our question is whether scripture alone be sufficient The text alledged saith only that it is profitable but saith not that it is either necessary or sufficient Therfor if we consider this place alone Faith may be conceyved without any scripture because scripture heer is not sayd to be necessary and cannot be conceyved by scripture alone because scripture is not sayd to be sufficient And then the argument comes to be retorted in this manner That which is no more than profitable is neither necessary nor sufficient but in the text alledged which Protestants bring as sufficient to proue the sufficiency of scripture scripture is only sayd to be profitable Therfor it is neither necessary nor sufficient 67. Secondly The words precedent to this text are these but thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thine infancie thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith which is in Christ Jesus By which words it appeares that the scripture of which S. Paul speakes is the Old testament which alone Timothy from his infancy had knowen and which could instruct him to salvation And therfor if this Objection be good the Old testament taken alone wil be sufficient for salvation and if it be a good consequence scripture is profitable to instruct therfor it is necessary and sufficient the Old testament which could instruct Timothy to salvation must be necessary and sufficient even for these tymes or if they were sufficient for those but not for these our tymes and that it be cleare that S. Paul spoke of those tymes and only of the Old testament as is confessed by Henoch Clapham Aretius Zwinglius Hooker and Ochinus as may be seene triple Cord. Chap. 7. Sect 5. with what conscience can they apply that text to vs as if the scripture of which that text speakes did signify the scriptures both of the Old and New testament Nay seing S. Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy about forry yeares before the Canon of scripture was perfited and that Protestants affirme that a living Iudg was necessary till the Canon was complete it followes that the text whith they alledg cannot signify that at that tyme the scripture alone was either necessary because there was then a living Iudg which could determine all Controversyes or sufficient because the Canon was not finished And therfor although it were granted that the Old Testament which was perfited had alone beene evident in all necessary poynts and therby sufficient for the Jewes yet the scripture of the New Testament being not perfited when S. Paul wrote these words it doth not follow that they can signify their sufficiency for Christians As Hooker Eccles Polit. First Booke N. 14. Pag. 43. sayth When the Apostle affirmed vnto Timo thy that the Old was able to make him wise to salvation 2. Timoth. 3.15 it was not his meaning that the Old alone can do this vnto vs which liue sithence the publication of the New Mark how this great man amongst Protestants affirmes that S. Paul speaks only of the Old scripture and that this alone is not sufficient for Christians which he proves because the Apostle sayth that those scriptures were able to make Timothy wise through the Faith which is in Christ V. 15. And this appeares also by the words of S. Paul saying to Timothy in the same Chapter V. 10. But thou hast attayned to my doctrine institution c. And afterward But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned That is of S. Paul his Maister Where we see that S. Paul did not send his scholler to Scripture alone but to his owne Institution Doctrine and interpretation and things committed to him by word of mouth or to scripture taken togeather with an infallible Living Iudg and so the Objection proves what we teach and overthrowes the doctrine of Protestants 68. Thirdly Protestants must shew that all things necessary are evidently contayned in scripture and this they must proue by some evident Text. For if it be not evident the matter will still remayne vncertayne But this Text on which they chiefly rely is not evident Therfor it is not sufficient to proue that which they intend and vpon which the whole Fabricke of their Faith depends The minor That this Text is not evident is evidently proved because it is impossible to shew evidently that profitable in this Text signifyes necessary or if that were freely granted it will remayne more than impossble to proue that profitable or necessary must in this Text signify sufficient For by what Grammer Logick or Divinity can any dreame this to be feceable The like I say of the words All scripture which they interpret not to signify every part or Book of Scripture but the whole body of Canonicall scripture taken togeather wheras Bellarm. de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 10. saith truly In the judgment of all that vnderstand latin that which is sayd of all scripture inspired of God is of sayd every booke which is inspired of God Beside the Apostle by this Vniversall proposition that all scripture is inspired by God proves that every particular scripture is profitable and that the scripture of the Old Testament which Timothy had knowen from his infancy was profitable to instruct him to salvation And therfor as every part of scripture is inspired so also is it profitable And this is more cleare according to the Protestant Englsh Translation Anno 1611. and 1622. and Greeke Text All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine c Where we see that of the same thing or subject and by the same word scripture it is sayd
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding to see the Scripture Wherby it still appeares that not our vnderstanding alone but it with some other Helpe not produced by the Scripture must be compared to our corporall Eye The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost and therfore our vnderstanding with that light is the Eye not produced by the Scripture but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture And lastly you who teach that we belieue for the Authority of the Church must say that the eye wherby we see Scripture is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church Which Tradition therfore must be knowne and believed before we belieue Scripture and not be produced by Scripture 12. Wheras you say Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters contradictions but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible you speake wickedly and ignorantly We haue heard Dr. Taylor in his Liberty c § 10. N. 16. confessing that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And it is certaine that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity to any learned Philosopher containess farr greater dissiculty than any that can be objected against Transubstantiation And yourselfe vpon a certaine occasion could say to some Protestants Either deny the Trinity or admitt Transubstantiation and it was answered we will rather admitt this than deny that And with good reason For if we respect humane discourse there are as I sayd more difficult objections against that Mystery than against this And if we regard Revelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence and Transubstantiation than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity And if regard were to be had of Heretikes more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity than of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of naturall Reason taking hold of the present tyme are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith The other part of your Affirmation That jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible is extreme bold seing so many great learned men hold the first and no man the latter being betweene them as great difference as betweene Est Est and Fuit non fuit But I feare you do not vnderstand what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing or jam factum facere which signifyes only that the same thing is and is wheras every body knowes that factum infectum facere is to say That which was was not A manifest Contradiction Yet withall I must add that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church doth necessarily depend on that Question Whether it be impossible jam factum facere But enough of this least others haue occasion to say of me as you say truly of yourselfe in the close of this N. 48. I digress 13. I know not well what to make of your long and distracted discourse N. 49. we do not deny but that Protestants and other Heretikes may assent to some Mystery of Faith by a humane opinion and perswasion but that assent of theirs is not true Divine supernaturall Faith God not giving his particular Grace for believing one Article of Faith to him who denyes another equally proposed as revealed by God wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed Vnlearned Catholikes may exercise a true Act of Faith because indeed their assent comes to rely vpon a firme ground that is Divine Revelation propounded by an infallible meanes Gods Church wheras Heretikes haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith as hath beene shewed in severall occasions 14. For gaining tyme and saving vnnecessary paines I had omitted to take notice of your N. 51.52 vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much that whosoever will reade aÌ„d compare the words of Ch Ma. with your Answer shall find that he speakes clearly and that you do so involue and obscure and alter what he spoke plainly that I know not what to make of your words He tells you that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ as yourself grant and to say as you doe that the Church or Tradition of the Church is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men for ought I can judge is repugnant to Reason and Christianity For what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ which cannot be knowne except by some supernaturall Arguments as Miracles Sanctity Scripture Revelation c. 15. I do not vnderstand these your words N. 52. addressed to C. Mâ— That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canenâ—all and need no proofe of its owne being so you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum constat I pray you where did Ch Ma say that there is any part of Scripture which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide even by this Argument that otherwise we cannot be assured what Booke and parts of Scripture are Canonicall And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious are not Protestants wont to proue that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall is not conforme to other parts of Scripture and therfore cannot be Canonicall Do not yourselfe say N. 27. The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture may be decided negatively out of Scripture by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall And may we not proue affirmatively for example that those Texts of the old Testament which are cited in the New are Canonicall because they are cited for such in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall I beseech you to what purpose or vpon what occasion given do you N. 51. vtter these words As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all sciences Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences Were all one Charity Maintayned said if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first and most know ne in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles he supposes that which is in Question whether there be not some Principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the
belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition doth he S. Irenaeus not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing els but the very same that is written Nothing but to belieâ—e in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge 51. Answer First this your Answer though it were never so true leaves Charity Maintayned in possession of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus against the Title of your Chapter Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes to witt that Tradition and therfore not only Scripture is such a Rule For dato non concesso that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible and guide vs by Tradition as by Gods vnwritten Word You teach here N. 126. That all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells And yet you say That they which had â—ll the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes and be testifyed by diverse witnesses So say I it had not beene superfluous but very profitable that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture and by the infallible Tradition of the Church which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written For as Scripture was not superfluous though it found another infallible Rule before it which also even according to Protestants remained for some tyme with it namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited so Tradition neither was nor is superfluous though there be another infallible Rule Scripture with it 52. Secondly When you say That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of is nothing els but the very same what is written nothing but to belieue in Christ to which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it you should add and vnderstand it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge I must answer as you N. 142. speake to Charity Maintayned I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what you meane by believing Only in generall that he is the Messias and that without believing him none can be saved Or else do you vnderstand by believing in Christ all that hath beene taught by him If you meane the first only you say nothing to the purpose because other Articles are necessarily to be believed beside that of Christs being the Messias If you meane the second that is all Points taught by our Saviour and necessary to be believed as you N. 159. say S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias as even there you declare that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion wholly and entirely that is the matter of the Gospell you know we deny that for all such truths Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide and to take the contrary without proofe is to begg the question Nay even for that of believing in Christ I wonder you would say that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide in the Principles and proceedings of Protestants seing you know that He knowes and the whole world knowes how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ some believing him to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father Others denying it Some saying he satisfyed for our sins others denying it as you know the Socinians doe So that take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ will terminate in the meere Name of Christ and the Title of Saviour with endless contentions about the Thing signifyed by that Name and Title Put then all your Assertions togeather the strength of them will end in this contradiction that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word of God yea though he doubt or reject it being proposed by other Parts of the Church as you expressly say in the same N. 159. 53. But you say S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say if God had not given vs the light of the Sun we must haue made vse of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must haue felt out our way If we had no leggs we must haue vsed crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we haue the Sun we need no candles While we haue our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying if we had had no Scripture we must haue followed Tradition and they that haue none do well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that haue Scripture and belicue it Tradition is vnnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition 54. Answer You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus and moue others to vndestand them as you please if you will first suppose your owne doctrine to be true that is if to begg the question may passe for a good Rule to interpret Authors If I say you suppose or take as granted that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation you may compare it to the Sun to Eyes to leggs and the Church to Candles to feeling out our way to crutches yea if she might erre to the Synagogue of Satan and lastly to Nothing because indeed every errour in Faith destroyes Faith and Church But if you conceaue as you ought that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs that by Her Eyes or Testimony we belieue Scripture to be the word of God as yourselfe grant that by Her subsistence as I may say it hath beene conserved and subsists you will be forced to invert your similitudes and interpretation of S. Irenaeus and say do not his words import that if candles should faile the Sun will last and as the Prophet David saith Psalm 18. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum that is in manifestatione Ecclesiam saith S. Austine If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way as the disagreements of Protestants shew they cannot we may see by the eyes of the Church by which we did first see Scripture itselfe and then do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import the direct contrary of that which you inferr That to them who haue Tradition as all they must haue who belieue Scripture
sinne of Protestants who do not only erre but also communicate with others who erre from which Communion we haue heard him confess that Charity Maintayned hath some probability to disswade men In the eyes of vulgar people this mixture of different Sects vnder one name of Protestancy may seeme a kind of good thing as bearing a shew of Charity yet indeed to wise men such communicants must appeare to be as litle zealous constant and firme in their owne Religion as they affect to be esteemed charitable to others And to every such Protestant doe fully agree those excellent words of glorious S. Austine de Civit Dei Lib 21. Cap 17. He doth erre so much the more absurdly and against the word of God more perversly by how much he seemeth to himself to Judge more charitably 12. Neither in this Discourse doe we relie vpon his wordsonly but on his Tenets and Grounds and such Truths as both hee often delivers and must be granted by all Christians namely that it is damnable to deny any least Truth sufficiently propounded to a man as revealed by God and therefore seing Protestants disagree about such Truths some of them must of necessity erre damnably And so he ought to alter the Title of his Book into the direct contradictorie and saie The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation For bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu and as we cannot affirme that Action to be vertuous which failes in any one morall circumstance so Protestants being confessedly guilty of damnable errours he must giue this Title to his Booke Protestancy not a safe way to salvation but vnrepented a certaine way to damnation 13. Or if he be resolved not to chang his Title vpon this Ground That albeit Protestants erre damnably yet they may be saved because they erre not in Fundamentall Articles absolutely and indispensably necessary to constitute one a member of the Church and in that regard may be either excused by Ignorance or pardoned by Repentance Then 14. I proue my second Proposition That for the verie same reason he must say and might haue put for the Title of his Book The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe waie to salvation seing he expresly and purposely teaches through his whole Book that we erre not in fundamentall points and that we may be saved by ignorance or Repentance That our Errors be not Fundamentall he declares in plaine termes For Ch Ma in his preface to the Reader N. 13. having saied Since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doe not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally because everie such errour destroyes the nature and being of the Church and so our Saviour should haue had no visible Church on earth To which demand Mr. Chillingworth answers in these words Pag 16. N. 20. I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the Whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those Truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constiture any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held something to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was Behold how he frees vs from all Fundamentall errors though he feares we are guilty of errours which he calls damnable that is repugnant to some Divine Revelation whereas he professes as a thing evident that some Protestants must erre fundamentally in that sense because they hold Contradictories of which both partes cannot be true And so even this for consideration he must say The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safer way to salvation than Protestancy seing he can not proue that we erre by Reason of any contradiction among ourselves in matters of Faith as it is manifest that one Protestant is contrarie to an other especially if we reflect that not onlie one particular or single person contradicts an other but whole Sects are at variance and contrariety as Lutherans Calvinists Anabaptists new Arians Socinians c The first point then it is cleare he confesses I meane that our supposed errours are not Fundamentall which is so true that whereas in severall occasions he writes or rather declaimes against vs for denying the cup to laymen and officiating in an vnknown toung as being in his opinion points directly contrarie to evident Revelation yet Pag 137. N. 21. he hopes that the deniall of them shall not be laid to our charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the foundations not overthrowing the foundation itself 15. But for the second doth he hold that we may be excused by ignorance or saved by Repentance as he saieth Protestants may Heare what he speakes to Catholiques Pag 34. N. 5. I can very hardly perswade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needfull qualifications of ignorancce and Repentance But whensoever your errors come into my minde my only comfort is amidest these agoriâ—s that the Doctrine and practise too of Repantance is yet remaining in your Church And this hee teaches through all his Book together with Dr. Potter and they vniversally affirme that those Catholiques may be saved who in simplicity of hart believe what they profess as they may be sure English Catholiques doe who might be begged for fooles or sent to Bedlam if they did not belieue that Faith and Religion be be true for the truth whereof they haue indured so long and grievous persecution Besides it being evident that many learned Protestants in the chiefest points controverted betwene them and vs agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as is specified and proved hereafter and is manifest by evidence of fact the Religion of Protestants cannot be safe or free from damnable Opinions vnless our Religion be also such For I hope they will not say that the selfe same Assertions taken in the same sense are true in the mouth of Protestants and false in ours We must therefore conclude that if he will make good his title The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he must say the same of vs Catholiques whoâ— he acknowledges not to erre in fundamentall points and to be capable of inculpable Ignorance or Repentance for which selfsame respects he pretends The
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which
the Apostles doubtiess delivered by Tradition Covell in his Answer to Iohn Burges Pag 139. affirmes the moderate vse of the Crosse to be an Apostolicall Constitution and in his Examination against the Plea of the innocent Cap. 9 Pag. 104. referreth the termes of Archishops vnto Apostolicall Ordination And VVhitgift in his Defence c affirmeth and proveth the Apostles Tradition of Easter And Oecolampadiuâ— affirms the Baptisme of infants not to be taught in scripture in liâ— Epiâ—tolarum Zuâ—nglâ—i Occolampaâ—â— Pag 101. and 363. and so likewise doth Zuinglius To 1. Lib de Bapt. Fol. 96. These men therefore must either confess the authority of Gods church and her infallible Traditions or yield to the pernicious Doctrine of Anabaptists Dr. Taylor in is Defence of Episcopacy is so full to our purpose for the necessity of Traditions that I thought sit to transcribe his words as they ly § 19. which are these Pag 100. Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to vs by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we haue no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitiue Disciples meeting in their Synaxes vpon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to haue changed it into a Thursday meeting to haue showne their Christian liberty we should thinke strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festivall lesse then an Aposticall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite vpon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily obserue that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants vpon vs as we doe of baptizing infants vpon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in scripture and therfore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicall traditiue ordination and therfor the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ sayd Hoc facite Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christes saying is there in all the foure Gospells limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests vpon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H Church and yet cannot be denyed that so it ought to be by any man that would not haue his Christendome suspected To these I adde the Communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all men that cry vp the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and diverse others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but vpon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should waue all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therfore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained vpon the confidence of that which we call the Faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe Thus farr the Doctour in whom beside other divers points for our purpose it is remarkable that he affirmes the deniall of the baptizing of infants to be an Heresy and yet that the contrary truth is not contained in scripture which therfore cannot be sayd to containe all necessary points of Faith 43. Seaventhly it is a prodigious kind of thing that Protestants would make men belieue that all necessary poynts are evident in scripture and yet for vnderstanding scripture prescribe certaine necessary Rules or Meanes which it is evident few can possibly obserue and no lesse evident by the confession of our adversaryes that being observed they are not sufficient and consequently even by those Meanes assigned for vnderstanding scripture we know that scripture is not evident in all necessary things which is a poynt well to be noted Sanchius de sacra scriptura Col 409. saith The Holy scripture in those things which are necessary to be knowne for salvation is so cleare that it may easily he vnderstood of all those who are indued with Gods spirit and who reade it attentively and dayly and vnderstand the words and phrases therof Easily Doth not this contradict all the former words which require knowledg hard to be gotten and paynes not easy to be taken The scripture sayth this Protestant is cleare in all necessary poynts to all that are indued with the spirit of God But if they be indued with the spirit of God they are presupposed to haue true Faith for points necessary to be knowen and then I aske fromwhence had they that Faith without which scripture is not cleare Not from scripture because it is prerequired to the vnderstanding of scripture Therfore from some other meanes which certainly can be no other but the Church and tradition Besides this that is beside the spirit of God yea aÌ„d true Faith they must reade scripture daily and attentively and must penetrate the words and phrases which is so farr from being easy to be done that he assignes no fewer thaÌ„ nineteene Rules for doeing it wherof one is that we interpret scripture juxta analogiam Fidei and by the Scriptures themselves by diligent conferring of places like to one an other Is this easy And yet we must not forget that he speaks of poynts necessary to de believed Scharphius assignes twenty Rules in cursu Theologico de scrip controvers 8. Pag 44. which vnless they be kept we cannot but erre But perhaps all these Rules are easy Iudg of the rest by these To know originall languages also to discusse the words phrases and Hebraismes to conferr the places which are like and vnlike to one another to aske advise
many things not necessary and you will not say that it signifyes only things only profitable which would overthrow your Assertion that they haue written all things necessary And therfor it remaynes according to your manner of discoursing that it signifyes at least all things necessary which cannot be sayd without absurdity as if the Evāgelists ād S. Mark in particular who beginns thus The beginning of the Gospell of Iesus Christ the Son of God as part of his Gospell had bin doubtfull whether they wrote only things necessary or both necessary and profitable and therfor to be sure not to erre did add at least 157. Before I ptoceed one thing is to be observed to wit that it seemes you are of Opinion that the Evangelists themselves gaue the titles to their owne Bookes For you say if every one of them haue not in them all necessary doctrines how haue they complyed with then owne designe which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how haue they not deceyved vs in giving them such Titles 158. But in this you are mistaken which beside other reasons appeares sufficiently by this that the inscription or Title of all the Gospells is the very same only the name of every patticular Evangelist being changed and S. Mark beside his particular manner of beginning his Gospell with these words The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the son of God hath also the same common Title which is prefixed before the other Gospells with difference only of his name And it is not likely S. Mark would haue repeated the same words In Protestant bibles Ann 1586. 1596. I find this Title The holy Gospell of Iesus christ according to Mark and the same they say of the other Gospells respectiue but Ann 1611. and 1622. they say The Gospell according to S. Mark where we see different words and some such as the Evangelists would not haue vsed calling themselves Saints or terming their owne writing The holy Gospell of Iesus Christ Do you think that S. Paul for example for his Epistle to the Romans gaue this Title The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans over and aboue that which he hath in the beginning of the Epistle it self Paul the servant of Jesus Christ to all that are at Rome the beloved of God called to be Saints Grace to you c Or that he premised this Title The first or second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians beside the particular address which he makes to them in the beginning of the Epistles themselvest The same I say of his Epistles to Timothy the Corinthians Thessalonians c Or do you belieue that S. John premised before his The second Epistle of John notwitstanding that in the Epistle it self he sayth The Seniour to the lady Elect and her childrē the like I say of the third Epistle vvhich begins the Seniour to Caius the dearest If then these titles were not given by the Evangelists they haue not deceyved you in giving such titles which they never gaue nor can it be gathered as you inferr that they haue not complyed with their owne designe which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it seing as I sayd those Titles are not theirs Besides if those Titles were not given by the Evangelists all your Arguments grounded on them are no proofes taken out of Holy Scripture which alone you ought to bring in the Principles of Protestants By the way I know not whether Protestants reflect that they haue in their bibles and reade publikly apocryphall Writings that is not Divine scripture which yet commonly most of them take to be scripture I meane the Titles of the Gospells Epistles and I might add distinction of Chapters and Verses c. And even out of the Premises I may conclude that if the meaning of the Titles of Canonicall books and in particular that which S Marke hath in the beginning of his Gospell which is a part of Scripture be not cleare who can believe that the meaning of the scripture it self is evident 159. You goe forward and say If this all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man be wholy contained in the Gospell of S. Mark and S. Iohn every considering man will be inclinable to beleeve that then without doubt it is contayned in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke 160. Answer You know we deny your supposition that all necessary Points are written in the Gospells of S. Mark and S. John And though your supposition or Antecedent were true yet your consequence or deduction is so weake that without doubt no considering man wil be inclinable to approue it For what a poore consequence is this The Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke are larger than the Gospells of S. Mark ād S. John Therfor if these containe all necessary Points those also must containe them As if some or many or all necessary Points might not be set downe within a small compass and none at all written in a larger Volume How many large Chapters are there in scripture which you will acknowledg not to containe any one necessary Point of Christian belief And yet the Apostles Creed which Dr. Potter and you affirme to containe all necessary Points of Faith consists not of very many words It is likely you are of opinyon that all Points absolutely necessary to salvation are very few and might perhaps be contained in a few lines or words in comparison of which small compass one Gospell may be truly sayd to be no larger than another because every man will be inclinable to belieue that three lines may be as well contained in a book of three Chapters as in a Volume of a great bulke as ten cubits may be esteemed as larg as twenty for the effect of containing a body of one cubit In fine all these your topicall toyes proue nothing till first you proue positively and solidly out of scripture that all necessary Points must necessarily be expressed in scripture and consequently that that was particularly the intent of the Evangelists Let vs see what proofes you can bring that S. Mark and S. John haue written all things necessary to be believed 161. You say P 210. N. 40. ād 41 that S. Marke wants no necessary Article of this covenant I persume you will not deny if you belieue Irenaeus when he sayes Matthew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell when Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and founded the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul compiled in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him and afterward Iohn residing in Asia in the Citty of Ephesus did himself also set forth a Gospell
the Church and the things which she delivers as true you grant the Church to be indued with infallibility as I may say habitually otherwise we could not belieue her Traditions or that the things which she delivers are true though she were supposed to deliver them Now if once it be granted that the Church is infallible not only as a witness of what hath bene done but also of what ought to be done that is of Fact and Faith of Practise and Speculation we haue as much as we desire to wit that the Church cannot erre in her Traditions or in defining what hath bene delivered by the Apostles And in this Whitaker by rejecting S. Chrysostome whom he could not otherwise answer shewes more sincerity then you doe 204. Lastly Wheras you say there are no vniversall Traditions of the Church for matters of Doctrine we haue demonstrated aboue that there are many as for example those which concerne the Governours and Government of the church Forme and matter of Sacraments and other Points of which I spoke hertofore even out of Dr. Field and other Protestant learned Writers And indeed seing S. Chryfostome saith as we haue seene that the Apostles delivered many things without writing who will belieue without any convincing reason to the contrary that not one of those many should be transmitted to posterity considering how many things are not clearly expressed in Scripture even the chief heads of Christian Doctrine as Dr. Field confesses and I haue demonstrated that the very Articles of our Creed are not cleare without the Declaration of the church and it appeares in the experience we haue before our eyes in the contentions of Protestants concerning those principall Articles of the Creed 205. But now let vs returne to answer your assertion out of S. Austine which in effect is done to our hands by Dr. Field who Lib 4. Cap 20. summoneth divers Traditions not contayned in scripture as the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurly contained in Scripture Yea Dr. Potter though he hold all Fundamentall Points of Faith to be contained in the Creed yet Pag 216. he puts this restriction that it must be taken in a Catholike sense that is as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius Now as Heresyes may still arise so still there will be necessity of a new opening or explanation and what would such explications availe vs in order to an Act of Faith if the whole church may erre And therfor when S. Austine is alledged to say that all necessary Points are manifest in scripture he cannot be vnderstood of scripture alone without explication or declaration of the church even for Fundamentall Points and consequently necessary to salvation contayned in the Creed This answer you might haue gathered out of S. Austines words if you had cited them aright as I haue done aboue Illa quae c Those things which are sett downe plainly in them Bookes of Holy Scripture whether they be precepts of good life or Rules of Faith are to be sought out with more industry and diligence of which every one fynds out the more by how much he is of a greater vnderstanding For in those things which are plainly sett downe in scripture all those things are found which contayne Faith and manners Do not these words signify that one must vse great diligence to seeke out the meaning of scripture and that some of greater ability even in things belonging to Faith fynd out more than others which argues that every one fynds not out all poynts of belief ād life for which therfor an authēticall interpreter or Tradition is necessary If it had not bene for tradition how would so many of our moderne sectaries haue believed the Mystery of the B. Trinity and some other Articles of Faith But the truth is we are often obliged to tradition when we least think thereof 206. In the meane tyme I must not omitt to say that in this First answer with falshood you joyne impertinency to divert the Reader from the state of the Question in saying Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church vnderstand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to vs who cast of no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the tyme of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes for our Question is not for the present Whether you deny any vniversall practise or Doctrine of Gods church but in generall whether the traditions of the church be not to be followed and believed whether they concerne Doctrine or practise and consequently whether scripture alone contayne all Objects of Faith and it seemes by this your answer that you do not deny the certainty of the churches vniversall traditions nor that he who refuseth to follow them may be thought to resist our Saviour which is as much as we desire 207. Your last answer That the church once held the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that therfor the church may erre is a meer vntruth and it is strang that you should so intollerably often alledg this Point and yet never so much as once offer to proue it and to alledg it as the doctrine of S. Austine without bringing one single Text out of him to make it good wheras you cannot be ignorant that Catholique divines alledg all that can be sayd out of S. Austine concerning this subject and solidly demonstrate that the actuall receyving Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist was never held by that holy Father to be necessary for infants and you presume too much if you thinke vs obliged to belieue you against greater and better authority than yours can be only by your ego dico I say it 208. Pag. 151. N. 42. You Object against my Argument out of this place of S. Austine Epist 118. If the church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness That it is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter because S. Austine speakes only of matters of order and decency and from hence I inferr if the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madness As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things 209. Answer 1. I cited S. Austine These things not any thing 2. If S. Austine did not suppose that the Catholique church cannot erre he could not say that it were a most insolēt madness to dispute against that which she practises For one might doubt whether that which she practises did not containe some errour against Faith or deviation from manners or whether that which you call order and decency or circumstance may not
vnless we belieue it finally and for itself divers verityes contained in scripture shall not be materiall objects of our Faith and in particular all those of which S. John speakes Cap 20. V. 30.31 Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Booke And these are written that you may belieue that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Those Miracles then were written not for themselves but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth Jesus is Christ the Son of God and even the belief of this Truth is referred to a further end that believing you may haue life in his name And 1. Pet. 1.9 we read more vniversally that the end of our Faith is the salvation of our soules Besides this Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture 4. Sir Are you a Christian of any profession If you be then it must be manifest to all the world that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture Therfor scripture is one part or Object of your belief and this as you profess vnder paine of damnation and consequently it is not only an object but a necessary object to be believed and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must doe so that is belieue scripture seing you can haue no reason to in Christ but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture If then you teach as you doe that one is not bound to belieue Scripture but may reject it you must grant that by the same reason he may not belieue yea may reject Christ himself And now heare what you say Pag 116. N. 159. If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely and liue according to it such a man though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinyon is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vnderstanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved Therfor men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had beene proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned In some of these words you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting For not so much seemes to signify that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree but this very mincing of things shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify we must say that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili For if this truth scripture is the word of God be revealed it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith then the verityes contayned in it If it be not revealed it is not only not so much but not at all an object of Faith But your other words neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by them but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved do either directly signify that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith nor a thing revealed by God or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine or rather blasphemy that a truth revealed by God may be rejected which you cōfess is to giue God the ly And that finally this is your opinion scripture is not a materiall object of Faith appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117. Where you say This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submitt to better judgment For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your N. 159. Neither can you avoide this absurdity by saying one may reject scripture if it be not sufficiently propounded For you put the very case that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them saying God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned and yet it is a thing granted by all and evident of it self that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture or any other verityes vnless they be sufficiently proposed and therfor if you will make good the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof and not contradict yourself you must confess that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof but may reject it although it be sufficiently proposed yea it will also follow that the contents therof may be rejected the first and last and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word For they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture if first they be perswaded that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self from which alone they can come to know any such obligation And so protestant ministers
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
excuse vs. If then you will stand to your owne doctrine you cannot deny but at one tyme that may consist with salvation which at another tyme is not compatible therwith The Church of God hath defined what Bookes be Canonicall and this Definition all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue and obey And even by this we may learne the necessity of acknowledging a Living Judg. All Books which are truly Canonicall were proposed and receyved by Crihstians After ward the knovvledg of some Bookes and some truths began to be obscured or doubted of or denyed by some and perhaps not by a few and those of great authority if we respect either learning or other endowments qualityes and abilityes vnder the degree of infallibility as we see there wanted not in the Apostles tyme some who were zealous for the observation of the Mosaicall Law and as these could not haue bene confuted convinced and quieted but by the infallibility of the first Councell held in Jerusalem so after some Bookes of scripture come once to be Questioned it is impossible to bring men backe to an vnanimous or any well grounded reception and certainty of them except by some authority acknowledged to be infallible which if we deny those Books which are receyved by many or most may as I sayd be doubted of even by those many and they which were receyved by few may in tyme gaine number and authority and so all things concerning scripture must be still ebbing and flowing and sloating in irremediable and endless vncertainty of admitting and rejecting the Canonicall Books And what connection or tye or threed can we haue to find out the Antiquity and truth of scripture except by such a Guide 51. And here I may answer an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 3. N. 12. which you relate Pag 141.142 N. 28.29 Some Bookes which were not alwayes knowen to be Canonicall haue bâ—ne afterward receyved for such but never any one Booke or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibâ—y assisted by the Holy Ghost never to propose as Dâ—vine Truths any thing not revealed by God! These words that you may with more ease impugne you thinke fit to cite imperfectly For where Cha Ma sayd never any one Booke or syllable desined by the Church was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall you leaue out by the Church which words yield a plaine Answer to your Objection or any that can be made Thus then you say Toneâ—ing the first sâ—rt if they were not commended to the Church by the Apoâ—â—â—es as Canonicall seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelation how can it be â—n Article of Faith to belicue them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall low then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonicall Scripture to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterward as it were by the Law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalbiess vnto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the Poynt was sufficiently discussed and therfore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the Number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable 52. Answer All Canonicall Bookes were commeÌ„ded to the Church by the Apostles for such though not necessarily to all Churches at the same instant and we pretend to no new Revelations And for your demand how then is the Church an infallible keeper of Scripture if some Bookes haue bene lost and others lost for a long tyme their being Canonicall or at least the necessity of being so esteemed I answer Your Argument is of no force against vs Catholiques who belieue an alwayes Living Guide the Church of God by which we shall infallibly be directed in all Points belonging to Faith and Religion to the worldes end as occasion shall require yea we bring this for a Demonstration that the Church must be infallible and Judg of Controversyes There was no scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy scripture was only among the people of IsraeÌ„l and yet there were Gentils in those dayes indued with Divine Faith as appeareth in Job and his friends The Church also of our Saviour Christ was before the scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively and vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and as men could be saved in those tymes without scripture so afterward also vpon condition that we haue a Living Guide and be ready to receiue scripture when it shall be proposed to vs by that Guide But your Objection vrges most against your brethren and yourself who acknowledg no other Rule of Faith but scripture alone and yet teach that the duty of the Church is to keepe scripture which being now your only Rule and necessary for Faith and salvation how doth she discharge her duty if she hath suffered some Bookes to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed Especially seing you teach against other Protestants that we receyue scripture from the Authority of the Church alone and therfor if she may faile either by proposing false scriptures or in conserving the true ones Protestants want all meanes of salvation Neither can you answer that it belongs to Gods Providence not to permit scripture to be wholly lost since it is necessary to salvation For you must remeber your owne Doctrinem that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men in punishment of their sins and then why may he not permit either true scriptures to be lost or false ones to be obtruded for true in punishment of sin and particularly of the excessiue pride of those who preferr their judgment before the Decrees of Gods church deny her Authority allow no Rule but scripture interpreted by themselves alone that so their pride against the Church and the abuse of true scripture may be justly punished by subtraction of true or obtrusion of false Bookes Beside God in his holy Providence works by second causes or Meanes If then he permit some scriptures to be lost and yet his Will be that there remaine a way open to Heaven he will not faile to do
it by other Meanes which is by the Magistery of other men Faith comes by hearing that is by his Church which he hath commanded vs to heare vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes or extraordinary lights motions or rapts And so this very Providence of God in permitting some scripture to be lost or questioned for a tyme proves the necessity of a Living Guide and the no-necessity or no sole-sufficiency of scripture and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide 53. But then say you How is the Church an infallible keeper of sâ—ripture which hath suffered some bookes to be lost It is easy for vs to answer that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost we are sure the Church can and will supply that defect by the assistance which God hath promised Her as your Volkelius de vera Relig L. 6. C. 19. affirmes and endeavours to prove that by scripture alone the Church may be restored though she were supposed totally to haue fayled which conceit of his though it be but a meere chimera since it appeares by experience that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to be believed yet it demonstrates that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written But this answer cannot serue Protestants who on the one side cannot be assured that in those scriptures which were lost there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith and on the other are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture consists not in this that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes but that she be so directed as no scripture or other Meanes be lost if indeed they be necessary for salvation 54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority and Canonicallness must be answered by Protestants who receyue for Canonicall some books of which once there was some doubt neither will they pretend to restore to them authority or Canonicallness which in themselves they could never loose for what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written but only we may come to know that which we did not know or to be assured of that wherof some doubted Which yet you must not so vnderstand as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes and much less that she did deny or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning theÌ„ as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles and the Church in due tyme even by occasion of such doubt or denyall declared the Truths contrary to those Heresyes to be arricles of Faith and those books of which some doubted to be Canonicall Thus Potter Pag 216. teaches that the Apâ—â—â—â—es Creed as it was further opened and explayned in some parts by occasion if emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Conseantmople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius contains all fundamentall Points of Faith And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonicall nay degrading them from the number of articles of Faith aÌ„d putting theÌ„ among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For the church did not omit to declare in due tyme and vpon fit or necessary occasioÌ„ that they were Canonicall as the ancieÌ„t Councell of Nice of whose Creed your Church of England Art 8. saieth it ought throughly to be receaved aÌ„d believed by occasioÌ„ of the daÌ„nable heresy of Arius with whom you and your SociniaÌ„s agree declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith or put among disputable problemes aÌ„y Part of true Canonicall scripture aÌ„d therfor Cha Ma sayd truly that never aÌ„y booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall was questioÌ„ed or rejected for apocriphall either by the church or any Catholique to whom such a DefinitioÌ„ was sufficiently notifyed though Heretiks will still be doing what pride aÌ„d obstinacie may suggest In the meane tyme you will find that I haue already aÌ„swered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha Ma that never any book or syllable once defined c and of which you are pleased to say certainly it is a bold assertion but extremely false aÌ„d say Hee Cha Ma were best ruâ—b his forhead hard and say c But our answer is very obvious that the booke of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of S. James and to the Heb which you mention were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall yet that did not hinder but afterward some might be ignorant or doubt of them as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter You cite S. Gregory L 9. Morall C. 13. calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but L. 19. C. 17. which you might haue learned out of Potter who P. 259. cites the same authority as I haue set it downe This I would not haue noted if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter Potter I say makes the same objection out of S. Gregory and Cha Ma Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18. answers it at large and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did These then be the words of Charity Maintayned what you alledg out of S. Gergory is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and divine scriptures but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius or Legat at
Constantinople and the Greek Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receyved in Africa as Canonicall by the Decree of the African Councell And therfor you were ill advised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M or Magnus the great wheras he was no Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those commentaryes vpon Job Thus farr Cha Ma 55. As for your demand whether before Sixtus Quintus his tyme our Church had a defined canon of scripture or not I Answer We had the same Canon then which we haue novv and vvhich the sacred councell of Trent hath set dovvne Sess 4. decreto de Canonicis scripturis The church had alvvayes the same Canon that is she never declared by any decree any bookes to be Apocryphall at one tyme vvhich she admitted for Canonicall at another One Councell may omitt or not mention some booke vvhich another specifyes but can never declare it to be Apocryphall or not canonicall to vvhich contrariety only private persons are obnoxious But yet although our church had not set do vvne the canō of scripture it is very improper for you to object 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 For do not Protestāts till this day disagree about the canon of scripture and so are not able to define vvhat is scripture and what is not yea they positively deny some books to be scripture vvhich others of them affirme to be Canonicall It is true I cannot properly say that for 1500 yeares they haue not defined any canon because they haue no such ancient being But I must say although they should last 1500 millions of yeares they vvould never be able to set dovvne any certaine canon as not having any assured ground for vvhich one part should yield to another And still I must be putting you in mynd of the difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants that vve vvho believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost are sure that she cannot deceaue vs vvith false or Apocryphall scriptures nor obtrude any false canon vvheras you vvho rely vpon scripture alone and yet can haue no certainty vvhat is the true canon as appeares both by your mutuall disagreements and because you haue no certaine infallible meanes to knovv vvhat is true scripture can haue no security for your faith in regard you haue no certainty concerning the totall rule therof 56. Your other Demand Whether our Canon of scripture vvas that vvhich vvas set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it be vvell considered is to speake truth exoticall for to the demand vvhat books be Canonicall the direct and right Ansvver is that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture for example Genesis Exodus Psalmes foure Gospells c vvhich Demand and Ansvver abstract from that other question about different Translations and Editions And vvho vvill aske vvhether the Septuagint or Aquila or Luther Calvin Beza Castalio set out a different Canon of scripture I meane for those bookes in which they agree that they are Canonicall and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon or books of scripture are most different Or if you will haue these demands to be all one seing both the Hebrew and Greeke books are corrupted as Calvin confesses your answer to your owne Demand must be that no true canon of scripture can be found and then woe be to Protestants whose Faith and salvation depends vpon the true canon of scripture If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement I Answer They sett forth no different canon but the selfsame to wit those books which before their tyme made vp the canon of scripture And as for the edition of Sixtus it is no good dealing in you to doe in this as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory concealing the large and cleare Answer which Cha Ma gaue to the same objection made by Potter Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3. where by the Authenticall Testimonyes of Persons aboue all exceptiō he shewed that the Decree of Sixtus about his edition was never promulgated that he himself had declared diverse things to haue crept in which needed a second review and that the whole work should be re-examined which he could never do being prevented by death 57. But good Sr. Reflect I beseech you that in this and the like Demands you give deadly wounds to Protestants who profess to rely vpon scripture alone and yet cannot possibly haue any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted by the Hebrew or Greek Texts which they acknowledg to be corrupted and much less by Translations of Protestants who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errours in their Translations as Cha Ma hath shewed Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16. which I wish the Reader for the Eternall good of his soule to peruse and reflect that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith and yet he either is sure that some Texts therof are corrupted or at least not sure but that they are so he cannot be obliged to belieue any one Text nor can in Matters of Eternity rely theron as in case divers meates were set before me wherof I know some to be poysonous and I haue no meanes to discerne them from the other I cannot safely touch any one of them But the matter passes in a far different manner with vs Catholiks as I haue often sayd and must often repeate We being sure that the church can neither approue any least corruption nor ground vpon it any Point of Faith and so a corruption in a true booke of Scripture can no more hurt vs then false Scriptures or Gospells which were vented in the primitive church could prejudice those Christians Nevertheless although as I sayd the church cannot approue any false translation yet she is not obliged at all tymes to declare one for Authenticall till all circumstances considered there appeare some necessity therof as the sacred Councell of Trent did by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations published by moderne Heretiks in favour of theyr heresies and for other just causes Luther himself Lib contra Zwing de verit Corporis Christi in Euchar was at length foroed to confess that If the world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councells and to haue recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now raigne 58. To that which you say in the same N. 29. suppose it had bene true that never any Booke after reteyving had bene Questioned how had this bene a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what moode or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
contradictions and falshoods then are found in those Bookes of Scripture which both Catholikes and Protestants admit Now say I in this case what shall Reason doe being left to itself without any Authority beside itself The Motives and humane Testimonyes of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity are only probable as you affirme Arguments to the contrary seeme convincing and such as haue bene held for Principles among the best Philosophers as I shewed vpon another occasion and therfor Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentils and we treate of the tyme before one is a Christian who theÌ„ will oblige such a Man being in possession of his Liberty to accept vnder paine of damnation an obligation positively to belieue and to liue according to the Rules of Christian Faith only vpon fallible inducements in opposition to so great seeming evidence to the contrary 76. Neither can you in your grounds say that Miracles wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion ought to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason For you teach that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men for avoyding of which delusion it may seeme wisdome and safest to sticke close to the Principles of Reason wherby though he may chance to be deceyved yet he cannot be accounted rash imprudent or inexcusable 2. you must suppose that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone for if they surpass probability you grant Christian Faith to be infallible and then the difficulty still remaynes how one can be obliged to imbrace meere probabilityes and such as you confess are not able to rayse our mynd to a higher and more firme assent than they themselves are against and as I may say in despight of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilityes 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question which is not to treate how farr one may be obliged by Miracles either evident by sense to those who see them wrought or asserted and delivered by an authority believed to be infallible as we Catholikes belieue Gods church to be but we speak of Miracles wrought in great distance of tyme and place from vs commended and believed only by your fallible tradition which therfor leaves this doubt whether one can be obliged to preferr fallible humane tradition confessedly insufficient to cause a certaine assent before seeming evidence and certainty of naturall Reason And it seemes easy to demonstrate that Protestants if they will be constant to their owne assertions and proceedings must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason For it cannot be denyed without great obstinacy and impudency that in all ages there haue bene wrought frequent great and evident Miracles by the professours of the Catholique Religion recorded by men eminent for learning wisdome and Sanctity who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment and testifyed not by one or a few or many single persons but by whole Communityes Cittyes and Countryes by meanes of which Miracles Infidels haue beene and are at this day converted from the worship of Idols to know the true God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ and yet notwithstanding all these Miracles which are able to convert Pagans Protestants will not conceiue themselves obliged to belieue that such Miracles were wrought or that those Articles of our Faith in confirmation wherof they were wrought are true And why Because they seeme contrary to naturall Reason as the Reall Presence Transubstantiation c Seing theÌ„ they reject Catholique Doctrines confirmed by Miracles in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason how can they pretend Reason to receaue Scripture and the contents therof for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God the Creation of all things out of nothing the Resurrection of the Dead and other such Articles which they make shew to belieue and are no less yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholikes which they reject Wherfor our finall Conclusion must be that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions is to vndermine and ouerthrow Christian Religion 77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted as some haue bene lost and in particular Protestants affirme even the Vulgate Translation which anciently was vsed in the Church to be corrupted as also the Greek and Hebrew your Tradition cannot secure vs what in particular is or is not corruted because it delivers only as it were in gross such or such Bookes but cannot with certainty informe vs of all corruptions additions varietyes and alterations as occasion shall require Thus some both Catholikes and Protestanis teach that Additions haue been made even to Pentateuch others assirme the same of the Bookes of Josue Kings and Hieremy and the like Additions might and perhaps haue been made to other Bookes at least we cannot be sure of the contrary if we consult only your fallible Tradition neither can we know by it that such Additions proceeded from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost And as Protestants are wont to say that a very great number of Catholique Doctrines which they vntruly call errours crept in by little and little as you also say Pag 91. N. 101. so what certainty can they haue that corruptions in Scriptures yea whole Apocriphall Bookes may not in tyme haue gained the repute of being Canonicall As for corruptions in Scripture you speak dangerously in saying Pag 141. N. 27. As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farr from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other and made to speake as they do for the advantage of those meÌ„ whose ambitioÌ„ it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority And afterward I would aske how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these plaâ—es which arealledged to proue the infallibility of the Church seing it is possible and not altogeather improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible wheÌ„ they had the government of all things in their owne hands may haue altered them for their purpose Do not these words giue scope for the enemyes of Christian Religion to object that we cannot be certaine of any Text of Scripture whether or no it be incorrupted For as you say it is not altogeather improbable that we haue altered some places for our purpose of proving the infallibility of the Church so you may say we haue done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief and the like may be sayd of all others who teach different Doctrines that they will incline to corrupt Scripture in favour of their severall Sects Neither can we haue any certainty whether this which may be done hath not bene practised and
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you
haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Traditiō But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō that is they must either renoūce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may
to wit the word of God who therfor will not deny his supernaturall concurse necessary to every true act of Divine Faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be left no meanes for the Faith and salvation of vnlearned persons from whom God exacts no more than that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their severall capacityes and vse such diligence as men ought to vse in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certaine that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted did heare every sentence he spoke but might belieue some by relation of others who stood neere 13. Three things then are necessary and sufficient for exercising an Act of Faith 1. That the ground itself be infallible 2. That it exist in that case for example that God haue indeed revealed such a truth 3. That he who believes proceed prudently Now to determine in particular when one may be judged to proceed prudently depends on divers circumstances of Persons capacity instruction c. What I haue exemplifyed in Scripture may be applyed to Divine Revelation in generall which could not be the Formall Object or Motiue of our Faith if it colud beare witness to any least vntruth and yet we may belieue by an Act of true Faith that which we only prudently belieue that God hath revealed if indeed he hath revealed it And so the first ground which I layd is true that the Foundation vpon which we finally rely must be absolutly certaine whatsoever the particular meanes by which such Foundation or Principle is applyed may chance to be This I say is true speaking of particular persons cases motives and as I may say in actu exercito without touching for the present other Questions 14. This ground being premised I demonstrate That both learned and vnlearned Catholikes haue a firme Foundation vpon which they build their Faith and that Protestants whether they be learned or vnlearned haue no such ground 15. First we haue proved that Scripture doth not contayne all necessary Points of Faith and therfor for those necessarie Points which are not to be found in Scripture they must either be ignorant of them or erre by denying them or els belieue them vpon the Authority of the Church which they expressly and obstinately hold to be fallible and so we may apply against them your owne words Pag 148. N. 36. where you expressly grant that vnless the Church be Infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to believe all that I haue to belieue one and therfor must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Out of which words it followes that you cannot believe any one Point of Faith for the Authority of the Church and that it were vnreasonable in you to doe so and an vnreasonable and imprudent Act cannot be supernaturall or be pleasing to God nor proceed from the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost as every Act of Divine Faith must doe Therfor since Protestants rely vpon Scripture alone which contaynes not all necessary Points of Faith the best learned amongst them must be destitute of somthing necessary to salvation and then what shall we say of the vnlearned who depend on their teachers But it is cleare that Catholikes learned and vnlearned who belieue the infallibility of the church may learne of Her and by tradition or the vnwritten word of God what is not particularly contained in his written word or Scripture 16. But here as in divers other occasions I must vnexpectedly yet necessarily make some stay Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 15. Pag 94. hath these words If I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receyved for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferr That if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Poynts we could not belieue Her in any one and so not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall At these words you take exception Pag 148. N. 36. and say By this Reason your Proselyts knowing you are not infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you yourself must not belieue yourself in any thing because you know that you are not infallible in all things Indeed if you had sayd we could not rationally belieue her for herowne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence which you proue in the next words alledged by me aboue For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing c 17. Answer You haue no reason to cavill at the words of Charity Maintayned which are very cleare and containe no more then what we haue heard yourself expressly teaching That an Authority subject to errour can be no firme Foundation of my belief in any thing And therfor He sayd expressly if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could not belieue her in any one Where you see he speakes of Infallibility which is destroyed by any one least errour and consequently cannot possibly be vnderstood otherwise than of believing the Church for her owne infallibility and Authority and being so vnderstood yourself profess willingly to grant the consequence which is the very same which Charity Maintained did inferr and even out of the very same reason which you did giue Besides he speakes expressly of Scripture and the Church in order to the proposing of Canonicall Scripture or believing other Points of Faith Fundamentall or not Fundamentall which require a Proposer vniversally infallible as yourself grant And so to answer your Objection no body can belieue me nor I can belieue my self for my owne authority in matters which require certainty and Infallibility as all Points of Faith doe vnless I were believed to be infallible in all things for the same reason which we haue heard yourself giue that an Authority subject â—o errour can be no firme FouÌ„dation of my belief in any thing But you say there is no coÌ„sequeÌ„ce in this Argument which you say is like to myne the dâ—vell is not infallible therfor if he sayes there is one God I cannot belieue him No Geometrician is infallible in all things therfor not in the things which he demonstrates N. N. is not infallible in all things therfor he may not belieue that he wrote a Booke entituled Charity Maintayned 18. Answer It is very true that I cannot
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
will not faile to haue them For an effectuall desire will moue him to apply all meanes necessary for and to remooue all impediments against that end And from hence I inferr that every one may obtaine true Contrition by the assistance of Gods Grace if his endeavours be not wanting And even these your exaggerations of the great danger men may incurre by want of Intention in the Minister or defect in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme and Pennance may moue him to procure Contrition for making all sure and so out of your poysonous Doctrine make wholsome triacle But you are mistaken if you conceyue the Question to be whether or no one may know that he hath either a desire of sorrow or sorrow which in generall one may as it were feele and know but whether his desire and sorrow be such as they ought to be supernaturall effectuall vniversall and from what cause they proceed whether from the Divine Angelicall humane or bad Spirit who not seldome transfigures himself into an Angell of light 57. The second advise you would haue vs giue concerning the Priest and his intention is to tell him that Gods Goodness which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better than their best will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were vnavoidable And therfor though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one And if he gaue Absolution without Intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his Penitent 58. Answer We haue already shewed that if one doe his best God will not faile to supply all defects concerning the Priest and his Intention by giving him Grace to attaine contrition which is a cleare and solid way of supplying the sayd defects as that which you propose is not if your meaning be that although the Priest were no Priest or gaue Absolution without Intention yet God would either make it a valid Sacrament immediatly as I may say performing by himself alone the function of the Priest or els would giue the effect which the Sacrament would haue conferred if it had bene valid without any change in the Penitent as if for example he had attrition only his sins should be forgiven no less than if he had receyved true Absolution or had arrived to an Act of Contrition Now certainly this your way could not quiet the feares of any vnderstanding man vnless you could bring some irrefragable Authority or convincing reason which is impossible for you to doe that God doth ever make valid an Absolution invalid for want of a true Minister or Intention or that a deadly sin may be forgiven by attrition alone If you suppose that God doth effectually moue him to Contrition you alter the case and your Opinion and contradict your owne words That though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one For if the Penitent haue contrition that false Priest is not to him as if he were one but all passes as if he had never confessed his sinnes to any such man only by change of the disposition in the Penitent himself which is the same which I haue declared and so vpon the matter your particular way of quieting such a Penitent might rather plunge him into greater feares and perplexityes 59. You goe forward and object our making the salvation of infants depend of Baptisme a casuall thing and in the power of man to conferr or not conferr and our suspending the same on the Baptizers Intention 60. Answer This Point concerning Baptisme of infants being especially in these tymes most necessary to be vnderstood I hope it will not be amisse to repeat some things of which I haue spoken before First then To deny the necessity of Baptisme for infants was the condemned Heresy of the Pelagians as appeares out of S. Austine Haere 88. and Cont Julian Pelag L 6. C. 7. which is so certaine that it is confessed by the Centurists Centur 5. Col 585. and by the Protestant Writer Sarcerius Loc Com 88. And S. Epiphan Haer 28. Condemnes Cerinthus for teaching that a man may be saved without Baptisme And Whitak Cont Duraeum L. 10 P. 883. saith we belieue and teach That sins are forgiven and grace conferred in Baptisme which the Manichees were accustomed to deny 2. Learned Protestants confesse that not only S. Austine taught the necessity of Baptisme for the salvation of Children for which Cartwright in Whitg Def chargeth him with absurdity but also in Generall that the Fathers were of the same mynd in so much as Musculus in locis Tit de Baptismo saith The Fathers deayed salvation to the children who dyed without Baptisme though their parents were faithfull In further proofe wherof we need no clearer Testimony than that of Calvin Instit Lib 4. Chap 1◠N. 20. saying It was vsuallmany Ages since even almost from the beginning of the Church that in danger of death lay people might Baptize if the Minister was not present in due tyme. And Bilson Confer at Hampton-Court affirmes the denying of private Persons in case of necessity to Baptise were to crosse all antiquity Hooker also fift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect 62. saith expresly That the generall and full consent of the Godly learned in all Ages doth make for validity of Baptisme yea albeit administred in private and even by women and this Doctrine he himself imbraceth and defends at large which confessed sense of Antiquity declares evidently the necessity of Baptisme Besides the same man fift Booke of Ecclsiast Politicy Sect 59. speaking of that Text Joan 3.5 Vnless a man be borne againe of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven By which Catholikes proue the absolute necessity of Baptisme speaketh against Calvinists thus To hyde the generall consent of Antiquity agreeing in the literall interpretation they cunningly affirme that certaine haue taken those words as meant of materiall water when they know that of all the Ancient there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or alledge the place then as implying externall Baptisme 3. Not only Protestants confess that the Fathers hold Baptisme to be necessary for the salvation of infants but also divers of themselves teach the same Doctrine Bilson in his true Differen Part 4. Pag 368. concludeth from S. Austine and the Scriptures That if children be excluded from Baptisme they be likewise excluded from the kingdome of God And That without Baptisme they cannot be saved by reason Originall sin is not remitted but in Baptisme Dr. Andrewes pretended Bishop of Winchester and a great Rabbi amongst English Protestants in his Answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinall Perrons Reply N. 18. expresly teaches that Baptisme is necessary via ordinaria Kemnitius one of the most learned Protestāts that ever wrote teaches and proves out of scripture That God doth not saue vs without meanes but by the laver of
because we cannot in this life hope to triumph over all sinne as Potter speakes so neither can her Communion be forsaken for Errours not Fundamentall seing the Doctor saith also that the Church may not hope to triumph over all Errours 8. Another Argument Charity Maintayned N. 25. tooke from these words of Potter Pag 75. There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke what he saith There can be no cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teaches that the Church of Christ the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall therfore errours in Poynts not Fundamentall cannot be judged a sufficient and just cause to depart from the vniversall Church and for the same reason if the errours of the Roman Church be supposed to be not Fundamentall there can be no just cause to depart from Her But here he expressly speakes vpon supposition that the Roman Church wanted nothing necessary to salvation and consequently that she did not erre in Fundamentall Points therfore there could be no cause to forsake Her And that Potter affirmes absolutly in other passages of his Booke that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Articles shall be demonstrated herafter and consequently that he contradicts himself in saying the vniversall Church cannot be forsaken and yet that there might be just and necessary cause to forsake the Church of Rome which erres only in Poynts not Fundamentall as he holds the vniversall Church may erre to say nothing for the present That Luther did forsake all Churches which is to forsake the vniversall Church as also that indeed all Ortodox Churches agreed with the Roman and so to forsake her was to forsake all Churches for which there can be no just cause 9. Another evasion Potter Pag 76. bring to avoyd the just imputation of Schisme and it is because they acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 10. This shift is confuted at large by Charity Maintayned as a strange Doctrine that men should be Schismatiks in for saking a Church which they judge to want somthing that is necessary to salvation and that they should be excused from Schisme who forsake her and yet profess that she hath all things necessary to salvation as if a man should thinke it a sufficient excuse for his rebellion to alledg that he held the Person against whom he rebelled to be his Lawfull Soveraine And Dr. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme because he forsooke the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be a true Church and to haue all necessary meanes to salvation But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholikes in mynd what an vnspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaryes are forced to confesse that they cannot cleare themselves from Schisme otherwise thaÌ„ by acknowledging that they do not nor caÌ„not cutt off froÌ„ the hope of salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say They must be damned vnless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your Zealous Brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere yourself from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all Points of Faith as you must profess yourself to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne yourselfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your owne definition of Schisme you cannot cleere yourselfe from that crime vnlesse you be content to acknowledg a manifest contradiction in your owne Assertions For if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of salvation how come you to say Pag. 20. that you Judg a reconcilation with vs to be damnable And Pag 75. that to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary cause And Pag 79. That they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discover their errour and neglect to vse them we dare not flatter them with so easy a censure of hope of salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the Hope of salvation the Church from which it separates how will you cleare yourself from Schisme who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure And who affirme that a reconciliation with vs is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficultyes which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme clearly that we may be saved least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirme that our Church erred in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation you know not how nor where nor among what Company of men to find a perpetuall Visible Church of Christ before Luther And therfore your best shift is to say and vnsay as your occasions command I do not examine the Doctours Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut of from the Body of Christ the Church from which it separates wherin he is mistaken as appeares by his owne example of the Donatists who were formall and proper Heretiks as he affirmes because they denyed the perpetuity of Gods Church which he saith is in its nature a formall Heresy against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and not Schismatiks as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists and Luciferians whom he also alâ—edges had bene meere Schismatiks yet it were against all good Logicke from a particular to inferr a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme Thus farr Charity Maintayned And indeed this might seeme a good Argument The Church of Rome wants something necessary to salvation Therfore it is lawfull and necessary to forsake Her but not this We haue forsaken the Church of Rome but yet so as we belieue she wants nothing necessary to salvation Therfore we are not Schismatiques 11. A third devise Potter hath to cleere Protestants from Schisme saying Pag 75. There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of ourselves But this saith Charity Maintayned N. 29. is a subtility by which all Schisme and sin
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue 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 vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
to proue your assertion and yet he L. 3. expresly speaks of a fals report venturos esse Paulum MachariuÌ„ two Embassadours sent into Africa by the pious Catholique Emperour Constans qui interessent Sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur proferreat illâ— Imaginem of the Emperour quam primò in altari ponerent sic Sacrificium offerretur Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholiques that Sacrisice is due only to God I beseech the Reader to reade Baronius Ann. 348. N. 33.34 I wonder how you durst at that tyme when you wrote and published your Booke write that setting pictures in Churches and vpon Altars may yield just cause to separate from a Church at that tyme I say when pictures began to appeare in English Protestant Churches even in the vniversityes and still I haue fresh occasions of wondering that ever your Booke could be approved Do not Lutherans to this day set vp Images in their Churches The wickleffists and Hussites and diverse learned Protestants allow of Images yea and some defend even the worshipping of them as may be seene in the Triple Cord Chapt 17. Sect 4. as also learned Protestants confesse that diverse Fathers defended the vse and worship of Images and that Xenaias was condemned for being the first that stirred vp warr against Images which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius And Nicephorus Hist Eccles Lib 16. Cap 27. saith Xenaias iste primus ô audacem animam os impudens vocem illam evomuit Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse See of this whole matter Brierley Tract 1. Sect 3. Subdivis 12. Pag 124. And Tract 1. Sect 8. Subdivis 2. Pag 214. And Bellar Tom 2. de Reliq Sanct Lib 2. Cap 6. saith That Xenaias was a Persian and a barbarous fellow yea and a fugitiue 〈◊〉 and though he was not baptized yet faining himselfe a Christian he crept into a Bishoppricke And de notis Eccles Lib 4. Cap 9. demonstrates out of S. Epiphanius Lactantius S. Basil S. Greg Nyssen S. Paulinus S. Athanas and others That pictures were wont to be placed in Churches And S. Austine himselfe Lib 1. de consensu Evangelistar Cap 10. witnesseth that in his tyme in many places Christ was to be seene painted between the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul And Lib 22. cont Faust Cap 73. he saith the same of the History of Abraham going about to sacrifice his Son Now I beseech you tell me whether vse of Images in Churches be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church or no If it be then the Donatists might haue reason to depart from the Church seing pictures were set vp both in and before S. Austines tyme and while to vse your owne wordes the whole world of Christians was vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner If it were not why do you in this place object to vs the vse of Pictures and say that S. Austine to avoyd the objection of the Donatists that Catholikes set Pictures vpon the Altar answered only by denying that to be true which they objected as if they might haue beene excused from Schisme if indeed Pictures had beene set vpon the Altar And must Protestants depart from the Communion of all those their Brethren who at this day defend the lawfullness and practise the setting vp of Images in Churches In the meane time they who impugne the vse and worsh ip of Images may consider in Xenaias what Progenitors they haue And heere to shew how even by the light of naturall reason the respect or irreverence which is donne to the Image redounds to the Prototypon I cannot omit to set downe the words of Nazarius in panegir Constantini in detestation of the fact of Maxentius in defacing aÌ„d throwing downe the Images of Constantine Ecce enim proh dolor verba vix suppetunt venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio divini vultus litura deformis O manus impiae ô truces oculi ita non calligastis In quo lumen mundi obsucrabatis meritas ipsi poenas non imbibistis Nihil profecto gravius nihil miserius Roma doluisti What then shall we say of Iconoclasts or Image-breakers or Image-despisers not of mortall men as Constantine was then but of the Saviour of the world his Blessed Mother and Saints now glorious in Heauen O England reflect and repent 123. But not in this place only you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austine For Pag 259. N. 20. you say All that S. Austine saith is not true And I belieue heat of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to â—â—er-confute them transported him so farr is to vrge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true But it is no wonder if notorious Schismatiks as you are willingly take occasion to defend such famous Schismatikes as the Donatists were and to do it covertly and ex obliquo when you are ashamed to vnmaske yourselfe and proclaime it directly and openly And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently that S. Austine was clearly with vs in that place which Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 164. cited out of him as also in that other place which he cited Pag 165. wherof you say in your same Pag 259. N. 20. I cannot but wonder very much why he S. Austine should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches Visibility And Pag 119. N. 163. you say To S. Austine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderatly And Pag 168. N. 64. S. Austine when he was out of the heate of disputation confesses c. If any aske why Socinians are so averse from S. Austine I answer because in his workes he doth so often so zealously and so learnedly defend the Uisibility Perpetuity Amplitude Infallibility and Authority of Gods Church and with Arguments so direct against all our moderne Heretikes and Socinians in particular as it is impossible one can be a friend to that holy Doctour of Gods Church and an enemy to the Church of Rome A consideration of great comfort that we defend the same cause and suffer with a Person so holy and learned as Protestants when their owne cause is not touched are wont to preferr him before all other Ancient Fathers 124. Object 13. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag 107. proves That seing Protestants grant that the Church cannot erre in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferr that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one Point First because though she were supposed to erre yet the errour could not be Fundamentall nor destructiue of Faith
that is that it is impossible that they can agree in all points Calvin Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 12. speakes plainly Quoniam nemo est qui non c. Because none is free from some cloua of ignorance we must either leaue no Church at all or we must Pardon errours in those things of which men may be ignorant without breach both of the summe or substance of Religion and loss of salvation Marke how this Patriark of Protestants acknowledges that noe Church can be free from errours not Fundamentall Dr. Lawed Sect 38. Pag 360. In things not necessary though they be Divine truths also I confess it were hartily to be wished that men might be all of one minde and one judgment But this can not be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes which here hang thinke and closes about her Whitaker Cont 2. Q. 5. C. 8. It is not needefull that all should thinke the same if such vanity be required there would be noe Church at all Potter Pag 39. It is a great vnity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the preces and particles of Divine Truth And Pag 69. He expressly confesses that all the weeds are not perfectly taken away in the reformed Church Chilling P. 279. N. 64. the visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructiue and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable Morton Appologie Lib 1.58 only Papists challenge priviledg of not erring And blessed be God who hath placed vs in a Church which vpon evident and necessary Reason challenges that priviledg without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith noe vnitie in the Church of which therfore we haue just cause to say with S. Austine Ep 48. wherewith Charity Maintayned ends the second part of his booke Others of the Donatists say we did indeed belieue that it imported nothing in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered vs from division and hath shewed to vs that it agreeth to one God that he be worshiped in vnity For what a Church is that which is divided even in points of Divine Faith If such errours be sufficient to divide from a Church as Protestants pretend to have parted from vs vpon that ground and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatikes and that noe Church is free from such errours what followes but that all Churches and all men must be divided from one another and noe one Church be left in the whole world And how can they be excused from Schisme in leaving all Churches for errours which no Church can avoide And who would be a Protestant seing themselves confess that they neither are nor can be free from damnable errours that is errours against Divine Revelation which wil actually bring damnation vpon them that keep themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault as you say Pag 279. 64. So as for the Generall effect of damnation they differ not from fundamentall errours which also are pardonable by repentance Beside Pag 220. N. 52. you say by fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation By which words you must vnderstand all truths necessary because they are revealed by God and commanded and not only things indispensably necessary of themselves because you say one may safely expect salvation if he belieue all things Fundamentall which safety he cannot expect who erres in points revealed though not Fundamentall of themselves seing you teach that all such errours are damnable and in plain termes Pag 133. N. 12. you say their state is dangerous which can not stand with safety therfore by Fundamentall points with the belief of which one may safely expect salvation you must vnderstand all points not only Fundamentall of themselves but such also as are necessary only because revealed And Pag 290. N. 88. you expresly giue those errours of which we speake the name of fundamentall even as one membrum dividens of Fundamentall as the Divisum in these wordes Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructiue of salvation Well now these errours which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against Gods Revelation and command must be in their owne nature damnable as you doe not denie but they are so and therfore we say that Luther and his fellows could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errours than they must forsake one an other till they leaue no Church at all and all come to be Independents both in respect of others and even of a mansselfe who must still be forsaking his owne errours against Faith as being damnable in themselves I neede not here repeat what I haue of necessitie often mentioned That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants in which we haue not other learned Protestants on our side against their fellows and I hope you will not say that the selfe same errours are even in their owne nature damnable in vs and not in Protestants which were a pretty non-sense and an vnjust partiality therfore I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants then vs yea it is vnansweareable by Protestants who confes that really their Church is subject to and actually is stained with such errours which we absolutely denie in respect of the Roman Church and such as agree with her 155. And here you must ponder your wordes Pag 280. N. 95. For Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 184. haveing alledged Potters wordes Pag 69. that the weedes are not perfectly taken away among Protestants saith What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one To this you reply And yet you yourselfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to haue 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 156. To this your reply I may answer out of what I sayd aboue How I pray is it all one to make a Supposition acknowledged by him who makes it to be a thing both vntrue and impossible and to speake of a thing so certainly and immoveably true that the contrary is impossible The former case treates of a voluntary supposition which the supposer knowes he may recall or reverse at his pleasure and bring things to the true state in which they really exist and so as I may say all will be mended
but not Fundamentall is but a contradiction to your owne doctrine Seing whatsoever errour is damnable is also Fundamentall and whatsoever is Fundamentall is damnable if we respect the negatiue precept of Faith obliging vniversally all persons in respect of all objects at all tymes semper pro semper as divines speake not to deny any Point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Charity Maâ—nâ—ayned declares at large Part 1. Pag 79. And the same is taught by your selfe Pag 194. N. 4. In these words To make any Points necessary to be believeâ— it is requisite that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations and these though they he not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be belâ—eâ—ed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforce vpon vs by a necessity of believing this essentiall and Fundamentall â—â—rtâ—cle of Faith that all Divine Revelations are true which to dâ— belieue or not to belâ—â—ue is for any Christian not only in pious but impossible Or els it is requisite that they be first actually revealed by God secondly â—ommaÌ„ded vnder â—â—ine of â—amnation to be particularly knowne and distinctly to be believed From these words of yours it clearly followes that culpably to deny any point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God implyes a contrariety with this essentiall and Fundamentall Article of Faith that all Divine revelations are true which certainly is a Fundamentall Truth and therfore all errours that are culpable and damnable are in this sense opposite to a Truth which indirectly and by accident and by consequence as you speake becomes Fundamentall The same you deliver Pa 197. N. 14. where you say to Charity Maintayned I deny flatly as aâ—thing destructive of it selfe that any errour can be damnable vnless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it selfe or by accident to some truth for the matter of it Fundamentall Why then do you distinguish between damnable and Fundamentall errours Morover if every damnable errour as you confess every errour to be which disbelieves any sufficiently proposed Divine Truth be Fundamentall every damnable errour destroyes the Essence of a Church which you confess cannot exist togeather with a Fundamentall errour and consequently the Church cannot erre culpably even in points not fundamentall of themselves and remaine a Church which is the thing we teach and you through your whole Booke deny and are forced to doe so in regard you hold that Christ hath always had a Church on Earth and yet must pretend that she hath erred to saue yourselves from the imputation of Schisme and Heresy The truth is every sinfull errour against Faith in a point of itselfe never so small is damnable and destroyes Faith Church and salvation neither is there any difference for the generall effect of damnation between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and therfore it is impossible the true Church can erre in either kind of such points because it is impossible that she can want any thing necessary to salvation or be obnoxious to any thing destructiue therof and so as I sayd for the Negatiue precept of not disbelieving any thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God there is no difference between those two sorts of Articles and the reason is because the Formall object or Motiue of our belief is the same in them both namely the Divine Revelation But for the affirmatiue precept of being obliged to belieue explicitly some prime Materiall Objects of Faith there is difference in regard that as such Truths are Fundamentall and necessary to be actually believed so errours contrary to them are most properly Fundamentall errours or errours directly and immediatly opposite to some Materiall Object of Faith Fundamentall of itselfe which every body sees doth not happen in all errours Otherwise how do you Potter and other Protestants distinguish between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall if all errours be Fundamentall or against a Fundamentall truth But you erre by not distinguishing or not rightly applying the distinction between the Affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith nor between the Formall and Materiall Object therof The Negatiue Precept arises from the Formall Object it being vniversally and intrinsecè vnlawfull to disbelieve any thing invested with the Divine Testimony wheras the affirmatiue Precept is taken from the Materiall Object of Faith in regard that God hath commanded some Truths to be expressly knowne and believed as absolutely necessary to salvation Vpon this erronious mistake youvnadvisedly find fault with Charity Maintayned in your Pag 197. N. 14. for saying Part 1. Chap. 3 N. 2. That errours may be damnable though they be against some Points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall which are the precise words of Ch Ma. Where you see he speakes of the Matter or Materiall Object and not of the Formall of Faith which is Divine Revelation and so this Doctrine of his is evidently true For â—s all Truths of Faith are not of their owne nature fundamentall Truths so neither can all errours be fundamentall Errours But say you the deny all of any revealed Truth for example of that of Pontius Pilates being judge of Christ is destructiue of this Fundamentall Truth that All Divine Revelations are true I answer as aboue that you erre by not distinguishing between the Materiall and Formall Object of Faith and not considering that fundamentall or not fundamentall Truths are not to be distinguished in order to the formall object of Divine Revelation which being the same in all Truths all should be fundamentall or all should not be Fundamentall But as I sayd that distinction is to be taken from the Materiall objects accordingly as some are more important and more necessary to be actually believed than other If any object that this truth All Divine Revelations are to be believed is a thing which we belieue as a Fundamentall Truth and therfore every errour against it must be Fundamentall To this I answer as aboue that those errours are Fundamentall which are directly and immediatly opposed to Fundamentall Truths not those which only mediatly and by consequence are such Now the errour directly opposite to this truth All Divine Revelations are true is this All Divine Revelations are not true which certainly is a Fundamentall errour as contrarily errours opposed immediatly and directly to Points not Fundamentall of themselves are not Fundamentall errours in the common sense of that distinction which were no distinction at all if every errour were equally opposite to a point Fundamentall in itselfe 171. You desire Charity Maintayned to reconcile his doctrine that errours may be damnable though they be repugnant to some point for its matter and nature not Fundamentall with his other saying Part 1. Chap 4. N. 15. Every Fundamentall errour must haue a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the
grace who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledg of truth Where you see Ch Ma saith it is in our power with Gods grace to find that saving Truth which is but one and is to be found only in the true visible Church of Christ and so it must 〈◊〉 our fault if we misse therof and consequently that our errours will be sinfull and that we cannot effectually repent of them without passing to the Truth that is without destroying those culpable sinfull errours which by Gods grace is in our power to destroy by embracing the contrary truths And afterward Ch Ma saith that the search of this truth will not proue so hard and intricate as men imagine because God hath endued his visible Church with so conspicuous markes of vnity and agreement in Doctrine Vniversality for tyme and place a never interrupted Succession of Pastours a perpetuall visibility from the Apostles to vs c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other congregations that whosoever doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these notes may easily discerne to what Church they belong Thus Ch Ma to shew how culpable and inexcusable they are who do not actually embrace Catholique Religion and forsake all other Congregations and errours And yet to take away all possibility for you to deceiue the world with this vnjust calumnie Ch Ma hath these very words Let not men flatter and deceiue themselves that ignorance will excuse them For there are so many and so easy and yet withall so powerfull meanes to find the true Church that it is a most dangerous ād pernicious errour to rely vpon the excuse of invincible ignorance What could he haue sayd more than to stile the Hope of Salvation by meanes of ignorance a pernicious errour Yet more and more to confute your calumnie and declare his owne sense he adds I wish them to consider that he can least hope for reliefe by ignorance who once confides therin because his very alledging of ignorance shewes that God hath put some thoughts into his mynd of seeking the safest way which if he relying on Gods Grace do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine discusse and perfitt he shall not faile to find what he seekes and to obtaine what he askes Now if Ch Ma teach so effectually that none must hope to be saved by ignorance with what truth or justice can you say that in his opinion Protestants may be saved without actually retracting their sinfull errours Nay I am sure Ch Ma believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation he will be sure by his Wisdome to apply those Meanes which in the ordinary course of his holy providence he hath appointed for that end which is to embrace the true Faith and to be a true member of the true visible Church 3. You pretend to beleeue that de facto God will bring none to heaven without Faith in Christ and beliefe of Christian Religion If then one should aske whether a Pagan or Jew or Turke could be saved with an vniversall sorrow for all his errours and sins knowne and vnknowne what would you answer If you say they might be saved you contradict yourselfe and grant that Salvation may be had without faith in Christ If you say they could not be saved because God de facto hath appointed Faith in Christ as a necessary condition or meanes for Salvation The same I answer in our case that God hath decreed to saue none without true Faith which is only in the true Uisible Church yea to be a true Christian and to be a Catholike is all one there being not any other true Christian Faith than that which is taught by the Catholique Church nor is there any true Church of Christ but One and therfore as you pretend to hold Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation you should also hold the same of the Catholique Faith and consequently that none can be saved with any sinfull errour contrary to that Faith nor that it can be true Repentance which doth not exclude any such errour And all that you can Object against this truth may be objected in behalfe of Jewes or Turks against your pretended beliefe that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation They might I say demand of you why they may not haue true Contrition and pardon of their sins by a generall repentance of all their offences knowne and vnknowne and among the rest of their errours against or ignorance of Christian Religion and what you answer to them will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against vs. For this cause Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 28 N. 3. saith that we hope and pray for the conversion of Protestants and surely our meaning is not that they be converted to vs by remaining in their former beliefe contrary to vs. But Ch M. need not wonder that you falsify him seing you are not ashamed to say Pag 34. N. 6. that according to the grounds of our Catholike Religion Protestants may dy in their supposed errours either with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they do so may be saved But I beseech you out of what Ground or Principle of Catholique Religion can you dreame to collect that Protestants can be saved by ignorance or with Contrition remayning formall Protestants And it is a comfort for Ch Ma to be calumniated by you in that very thing wherin you calumniate the whole Church of God In the meane tyme by what I haue sayd innumerable places I may say the chiefest part of your Booke are answered which goe vpon this false ground that men may be saved without relinquishing their sinfull and damnable errours which you perpetually affirme without any proofe And what reason can be given why a man cannot be saved without relinquishing other deadly sins for example Hatred Perjury Theft c. and yet that it is not necessary to forsake errours confessed to be sinfull and damnable But it is no wonder that Heretikes are willing to sooth their Heresyes with false priviledges denyed to all other deadly sins 4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6 I haue answered already You say Pag 33. N. 4. the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular man or Church may as you confesse they may hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall errour and yet be still the Church Especially seing you say it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose itselfe Why do you stopp here and not goe forward to declare what lyes involued in your discourse thus In the tyme of the Apostles if a particular man or Church might haue held some errour and yet remained a member of the Church
errour not be damnable yea even though it were damnable and fundamentall which is to be noted because It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles The like you may say of Scripture it selfe that it might erre and yet that it could not containe any damnable errour because according to Protestants It is nothing but opposing the Scripture that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture which consequences are absurd and therfore as you would answer by denying the supposition that the Apostles can teach or Scripture can containe any errour so you know we absolutly deny your supposition that the Church can erre in matters of Faith which if we did grant we would not be so foolish as to beliefe that Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church makes an errour damnable but contrarily we would affirme that precisily to oppose the Churches Doctrine that supposition being once made could never be Heresy or a damnable errour And therfore we speake very consequently in First believing that the Church cannot erre and then in avouching that every errour repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church is heresy The Motto in the frontispice of your Booke taken out of Jsaac Casaubon in Epist ad Card Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ sayth Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendaue vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit Obserue that he speakes of things absolutely necessary to salvation and then I say if the Church be subject to errour how can we be sure that Her Deductions from Scripture are necessary or only probable true or false though to her they may seeme true and necessary You say it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itselfe and do not reflect by this vety saying yourselfe must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth For if she may erre in some Points and believe aright in others those errours may be opposite to some truth which she believes though she do not marke that opposition You say Pag 215. N. 46. no mans errours can be confuted who togeather with his errour doth not belieue 〈◊〉 grant some true Principle that contradicts his errour If then the Churches errours may be confuted as you will suppose they may she must belieue some truth that contradicts her errour and therefore if it be impossible that the Church can be opposite to herselfe as you say it is impossible you must grant that she cannot belieue or teach any errour and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herselfe because truth cannot possibly be opposite to truth 10. In the same N. 4. I must touch in a word that you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 19. some may for a tyme haue invincible Ignorance even of some Fundamentall Article of Faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such Ignorance or errour But you cite them thus Ignorance may excuse errours even in Fundamentall Articles of Faith omitting that necessary limitation for a tyme without which restriction the words sound as if absolvtely a man may liue and dy with invincible ignorance of Fundamentall Articles or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation and so want meanes sufficient to besaved without any fault of his which is not true For if he cooperate with Gods holy Grace they shall be degrees advance to the beliefe of all necessary Points though for a tyme they were ignorant of them And here I reflect that if a Protestant erre in or be invincibly ignorant for a tyme fo some fundamentall Point sufficiently proposed and believed by other Protestants they differ in the beliefe of fundamentall Points and the ignorant party sins not damnably and yet they sin damnably who disbelieue any Point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God though otherwise it be not fundamentall of it selfe and therfore it is cleare that in matters of Divine Faith consideration is chiefly to be had of the formall and not of the materiall object 11. In your N. 7. you say God hath left meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined Which concession is as much as we desire For no man dare say that God hath given any meanes only for superfluous vses or occasions and therfore seing he hath left meanes for deciding all Controversyes necessary to be determined we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdome imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any Since then as I sayd God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes he will not faile to replenish her with Wisdome to discerne what be the occasions wherin they ought to be determined according to the exigence of particular circumstances Thus the Apostles called a Councell vpon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moyses and the first foure Generall Councells which commonly Protestants pretend to receiue were gathered vpon severall occasions of emergent Heresyes The Scripture it selfe was not written all at once but as occasion did require and the same Holy Spirit which assisted Canonicall Writers in writing did appoint to them the tymes and occasions for which their writings would be most seasonable yet after they were once written it was necessary to belieue them as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Councell registred Act 15. and other Generall Councells and commands of the Church If Controversyes rise to such a height that there is periculum in mora danger in delaying to determine them either for avoiding insufferable breach of Charity and Schisme or corruptions in manners or invalidity of Sacraments which cannot be otherwise prevented If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent If errour be like to prevaile vnlesse it be condemned if new Heresyes be in danger to take roote if they be not crushed with speede if these or any other causes require the Decision of Controversyes the Holy Ghost will effectually inspire and direct his Church to apply a convenient remedy according to the Condition of the matter Neither ought it to seeme strang that somthing may grow to be necessary one tyme which was not necessary at another and in the meane tyme men may be saved by an humble preparation of mynd to belieue and obey whatsoever the Church shall in good tyme determine or command And by the way out of this discourse we may inferr that Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes in regard that such a Rule or judge must serue for all emergent occasions and Scripture being always the same cannot be applyed sutably to all new different circumstances as I haue often saied 12. You say If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane tyme
and yet not to haue beene inspired by God himselfe against such men there were no disputing out of the Bible In which words you confess that one cannot gather that a writing is inspired by God even though he did belieue that the contents therof were all true You make him also contradict yourselfe who resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches aÌ„d C Ma specifies not the present Church but saith oÌ„ly that Hooker acknowledged that we belieue Scripture for the Authority of the Church He must also contradict himselfe who I suppose liking not the Puritans privat spirit and proving that it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Pag 42. N. 7. citing the place of Hooker leaves nothing for our motiue to belieue it except the Church Yet no man denyes but what we first belieue for the Authority of the Church may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason as Hooker saith The former inducement the Authority of Gods Church prevailing somwhat with vs before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason And yourselfe in this Chapter N. 47. explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I haue declared And therfore consider whether you do well in relating Mookers words to leaue out these words which are immediatly joyned to those which you cite If I belieue the Gospell yet is reason of singular vse for that it confirmeth me in this my beliefe the more Is this to say that naturall reason as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church in which sense we now speake of it is the last thing into which our beliefe of Scripture is resolved seing such a confirmation by Reason comes after we haue believed You say that when Hooker saith When we know the whole Church of God hath that oâ—inion of the Scripture c the Church he speakes of seenes to be that particular Church wherin a man is bredd where I put you in mynd of what you sayd in another place that A Church signifyes a particular Church and The Church as Hooker speakes signifyes the vniversall How then do you say That by The Church he signifies a particular Church Or how is the Distinction of A and The Church such as you would haue men belieue But this I let passe and aske you what finally you will haue Hookers opinion to be concerning the meanes for which we belieue with certainty Scripture to be the word of God The private Spirit You know he was an Anti-Calvinist and the private spirit could not sute with his genius Naturall Reason That is evidently against reason as we haue shewed and you grant And when he speakes most of reason he speakes of infidells or Atheists calling in question the authority of Scripture who may be perswaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine c So there remaines only the Authority of the Church if you will haue him to say anything Dr Covell in his defence of Hookers Bookes Art 4. Pag 31. saith clearly Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue sayd as none of them doe to affirme that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by vs for the Authority of the Church These words of Covell were cited by Cha Ma N. 26. but it seemes you would take no notice of them and who could better vnderstand Hookers mynd than this his Defendant By the way we may obserue how hard it is to agree about the sense of holy Scripture which is more sublime than humane Writings if we cannot agree about the meaning of men 2. And by this occasion I must turne backe to your N. 11. where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintayned and giue them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense and words You speake thus You in saying here that scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may bo called in some sense a Iudge though not abone yet to speake propâ—â—ly as men should speake when they write of Controversyes in Religion the scripture is not a Iudge of CoÌ„troversyes but a rule only aÌ„d the only rule for Christians to iudge theÌ„ by But in this imputation you haue no reason at all to interpret Charity Maintayned as you doe For He in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes tooke only the contradictory of that which even in this place you affirme Protestants to belieue Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes and therfore it was necessary for Him to declare his mynd by the contradictory proposition that Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversyes which is very true though iâ— be not a judge of Controversyes either by itselfe alone or in any other sense and you know he doth expressly and purposely and largely proue that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever to be a Judge and therfore when you say men should speake properly when they write of Controversyes in Religion and yet confess that Protestants have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes and that to speake properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes you taxe Protestants only and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintaynâ— 3. Here also I may speake a word to your N. 15. as belonging to interpretation You say To execute the letter of the Law according to rigour would be many tymes vnjust and therfore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it wherof in Religion there is no vse at all I pray you would it not be many tymes vnjust to execute the letter of the Scripture taken without a true and moderate interpretation And for this very caÌ„use there is great vse of a Judge and Authenticall interpreter otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother vpon some mistaken Text of Scripture that idolaters were to be taken out of the world subjects might rebell no warr would be judged lawfull no oathes to be taken in any case c And here I willingly take what you N. 17. giue me that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is sit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible This I take and inferr that you wholy enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible and therfore that we cannot inferr the Church to be infallible because we are commanded to heare Her not considering this difference which here your selfe giue betweene a Judge in Civill Controversyes and a Judge in Religion wherin such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belâ—â—ue to haue judged right Which are your owne words wheras in Civill matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not always to belieue it â—ust which are also your words 4. Neither will I omitt
here your saying N. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe â—or as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things vnder his feeâ—e is mâ—st true though yet S. Paul tells vs that when it is sayd he hath put all things vnder him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things vnder him So when we say that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne may say all my substance is in this shipp and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance nor yes to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is sipportâ—d by the foundation and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you yourselves vse to say that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or els made him head of himselfe 5. Answer Are all those Protestants Cavillers who teach that we may know by Scripture it selfe that it is the word of God and consequently that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe Doth not Potter Pag 141. say That Scripture is of Divine Authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron after he had confuted the opinions of others about the private spirit and the Doctrine of Catholikes concerning the Church finally resolve that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God by certaine criteria or markes found in the Scripture it selfe And therfore it cannot be denyed but that when Protestants teach that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture they must either say that this Point of Faith Scripture is the word of God may be learned by Scripture or els contradict themselves as indeed they must and for that cause ought to grant that besides Scripture there is some other Meanes to propose Divine Revelations and Scripture it selfe with the true interpretation therof Your examples may be turned against you by those your Brethren who deny both the private spirit and the Authority of the Church for assuring vs with certainty that Scripture is the Word of God and they will tell you that if a ship must either be within itselfe or no where a marchant shewing a ship of his owne and saying all my substance is in this ship must either grant that the ship is in itselfe or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship and the like they would say of a foundation that if it support the whole house and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe it must support it selfe and then they would informe you that seing not only the contents of Scripture but also Scripture itselfe are objects revealed by God which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit which you and they hold to be a foolery nor an infallible Church which all of you hold to be Papistry it followes that Scripture must be believed for itselfe or els not be believed at all And the same we may answer ad hominem that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church but he must be head of himselfe it could not be sayd that he is head of the whole vnless it be also granted that he is head of himselfe but we deny that fond supposition that he cannot be head of the Church vnless he be head of himselfe as contrarily Protestants teach that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church nor by the private spirit and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe The same they would answer to those words he hath put all things vnder his feete that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him if indeed those first words he hath put all things vnder his feete could not be verifyed vnless he who put all things vnder his feete were put vnder him Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren except by saying that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God aÌ„d therfore there is required no infallibility in â—he Church from which you say we receiue Scripture or els that Scripture is not a materiall object which we belieue or both as indeed you affirme both that Faith is not infallible and that Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith And finally every one who hath care of his soule must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants conclude with Catholikes that for believing with certainty that Scripture is the word of God we must rely on the Church with this condition also that she be believed to be infallible which infallibility is absolutely necessary if once with all Christians we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true 6. To your N. 34. I answer That all those Bookes of Scripture are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such Before which declaration of the Church all they were very secure who differed about some Bookes because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation But for the contrary reason Protestants relying vpon the sole written word cannot be safe in regard that they not knowing what Points in particular be necessary to salvation to make all sure must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes which diverse learned men even of their owne Sect acknowledg to be Canonicall least otherwise they may chance to remaine in ignorance or errour of some matter necessary to salvation 7. The same Answer serves for your N. 36. For it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther and diverse other Bookes of Scripture as Luther speakes of them after the Definition of Gods Church to the contrary Wherof see Charity Ma. N. 9. Pag 45. 8. Your other Sections or numbers till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther whom I know you defend against your Conscience and the Canon of the English Protestant Church which now hath no existence and her 39. Articles being or having been vnder Censure may perhaps be altered I let pass not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words N. 47. directed to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
Epistle to the Hebrews that it was put out of the number by the greatest part of men and yet elswere he receives it as the Epistle of S. Paul And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Herome concerning his rejecting of Bookes not admitted by the Hebrewes heare it in his owne words advers Ruff Apolog 2. wheras I haue reported what the Hebrewes vsed to object against the History of Susanna and the Hymne of the Three Children and the Story of the Dragon Bel which are not in the Hebrew I haue not declared what I thought but what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and he calls Russinus a foolish Sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes about these parts of Daniel And S. Hierome explaining himselse in this manner is acknowledged by Covell Answ to Bourges Pag 87. and Bankcroft Confer before his Majesty How then will you excuse your Church which in her sixt Article saith in generall of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apocryphall among which are the History of Susanna the Hymne of the three Children and that of the Dragon The other Bookes as S. Hierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine How can she I say be excused since S. Hierome even according to the Confession of your owne Brethren doth explaine himselfe that he vttered only what the Jewes were wont to say against vs and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary So as insteed of S. Hierome and the Church of God you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome and of the Synagogue against the Church of Christ our Lord And so your whole Canon of the Old Testament relyes vpon the Authority of the Jewes Thus far Charit Maint Which you did not well to conceale And while you will not receaue the Canon from the vniversall Church before Luther you send men to the Jewes Now that S. Hierome received the Epistle to the Hebrewes for Canonicall appeares out of his Epistle ad Dardanum where he saith of this Epistle of S. Paul and the Apocalyps of S. John Nos vtraque suscipimus we receaue them both though we haue heard him say before ad Paulinum that the Epistle to the Hebrewes was put out of the number by the greatest part of men But howsoever this were particular Opinyons do nothing concerne the Definitions of the Church as I saied 22. You say N. 92. How can we receiue the Scripture vpon the authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at severall tymes Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for authenticall and Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancâ—ent Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes accordig to the vulgar Edition but aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtuâ— and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 23. Answer It is intolerable in you to presume that your word must be taken without so much as offering any least proofe for what you say wheras you could not be ignorant but that all difficultyes which either Protestants or any other Heretikes could object against vs haue beene considered and confuted by learned Catholikes And why did you not cite those different and repugnant Texts which you mention in Malachie Yet the Reader at aventure may read Bellarmine De Missa L. 1. C. 10. and Corn à Lapide vpon Malach 1.11 where they learnedly proue the holy Sacrifice of the Masse out of that place and solidly answer all the objections to the contrary For that which you mention of the Story of Jacob in Genesis compared with the Epâ—â—â—â—e to the Hebrewes I wish you had so declared your objection that I might haue applyed a particular and determinate answer therto Now I can only conjecture what you meane and desire the Reader if he desire satisfaction in this matter to peruse what Corn a Lapide writes vpon Heb 11.21 where he learnedly answers the difficulty which may seeme to be in this place compared with the 47. Chap V. 31. of Genesis see also the annotation of the Rhemes testament vpon the said place of S. Paul and the annotation of the Doway translation vpon Gen 47.31 who declare this very well and the former she wes that in your Translation you clearly falsify the Text of Scripture I wonder you do not blush to talke of the Bible of Sixtus and Clement having seene the full Answer which Ch Ma giveth to that objection made also by Potter which is a signe you could not indeed confute what Ch Ma said therin Part 2. Chap 6. N. 3. 24. Your N. 93.94.95.96.67 haue bene sufficiently answered already yet I will touch some Points You say N. 93. If it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige him or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture 25. Answer You will needs be still confounding effectually and irresistibly wherof I spoke enough hertofore For the present I say that God hath obliged himselfe so to teach the Church effectually the true interpretation of Scripture that we are infallibly certaine she is free from all errour in Faith which is a priviledge absolutely necessary as those things are not which you specify N. 96. That he should not only guard them from all errours but guide them to all profitable Truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be and that he should de end them irresislibly from all vices and infuse into them irresistibly all vertues These things I say are not necessary as true Faith is necessary for constituting one a member of the Church which hath beene proved hertofore even out of Protestants Who will not wonder at these words of yours to Ch Mat If you say he cannot do this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in prefessing their beliefe For who sees not but that by this meanes you take away the infallibility of the Apostles yea of our Saviour himselfe whom you belieue not to be God Or els you must grant that men may be infallible by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost without taking away their free will and so you must either contradict yourselfe or blaspheme against the infallibility of the Apostles and certaine truth of Christian Religion 26. The Answer which you giue N. 97. to the place which Ch Ma N. 18. cited out of S. Austine I would not belieue the
Gospell vnless the authority of the Church did moue me is easily confuted That which moved the Saint to belieue the Gospell was not the authority of any particular Church but of the vniversall which deserves as much credit and is as infallible in one age as in another For if the whole Church of this age could erre what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this and so vpward from one to another more than to this present age and so we could not ground any certainty vpon the Tradition of the whole Churâ—â— of all ages vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the beâ—â—ere of Scripture Your other saying The Christian Tradition being as fall against Manâ—â—haâ—â—s as it was for the Gospell He S. Austine did well to conclude that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus as to belieue the Gospâ—ll overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants that all thinges necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture alone For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell and yet in this second Chapter Pag 114. N. 155. You say Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine having atteâ—â—ation from Tradition truly vniverfall for this reason we conceiue as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of Controversyes so their writings now they are dead are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by If being pressed you tell vs perforce that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus but the Tradition which delivered Scripture and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone you manifestly contradict S. Austine Cont Ep Fund Chap 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18. I would not â—elieue the Gospell vnless the Authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me do not belieue Manichaeus Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus vpon the same Authority for which he believed Scripture which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church and therfore both the Scripture and Doctrine or interpretation therof we must receiue from the Church Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 18. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say belieue the Catholikes They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therfore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say do not belieue the Catholikes thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommeÌ„ding Manichaenâ— Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Thus far S. Austine From whose words Cha Ma makes this reflection Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Austine spake when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to belieue Her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically than doctrinally when he sayd Lib de Utilit cred Cap 14. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to be if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Belieue them that we ought to belieue Christ But learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me anything I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ than that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therfore saith Cha Ma we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scripture from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and interpretation of Scripture 27. The application of S. Austines words in your N. 99. to any particular Church is impertinent and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument who as I haue sayd received the Gospell vpoÌ„ the credit of the vniversall Church aÌ„d not vpoÌ„ the Authority of any particular Church or private person and of the vniversall Church he had all reason to say that as for her Authority he believed the Gospell so for the same authority he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus which that vniversall Church condemned But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages and all the Churches or vniversall Church of every Age which must be no less infallible than all the Churches of all Ages and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age vpon which mistake your whole objection goes N. 99. about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument But wheras you say the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity but being first converted were afterward perverted by the Arians as may be seene in Baronius Ann 370. This answer confutes your passionate bitter declamation vented in your N. 101. 28. Your N. 100. demands whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits to say that Protestants would haue men beâ—eue the Roman Church delâ—vering Scripture wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture which are not so And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it 29. Answer as aboue that either you received the Scripture vpon the credit of the Roman Church and such Churches as agreed with her or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy admitting and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible vnles you receaue it for that Reason because the Church delivers it And your admitting some Bookes and rejecting others which the Church receives doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes 30. You say N. 103. As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes I wonder
you would spend tyme in such toyes The maine Question being whether the Church or Scripture be Judge or Rule of Controversyes in Faith Charity Maintayned N. 19. proves that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge because it is not intelligible to all that is to vnlearned persons as the Church is and therfore inferrs that not the Scripture but the Church must be Judge And is not that a good consequence Besides you say that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his N. 19. which you impugne vndertooke only to proue that Scripture is not a Judge Therfore you grant that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place though he added by way of supererogation that the Church must be that Judge which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge it being supposed that either the Scripture or Church must be A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent and most important Truth 31. The words of the Apostle Rom 14.5 Let every one abound in his owne sense are prophanely applyed by you as if every one might follow his owne sense for the interpretation of Scripture which delivers Divine Revelations and you confess that to disbelieue objects so revealed is damnable in it selfe S. Paul speakes of things indifferent and which at that tyme were neither commanded not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law which then was mortua but not mortifera dead but not deadly 32. Your N. 104. till the N. 106. inclusiuè haue beene answered at large You suppose N. 108. and N. 113. that to find out the true Church every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine through all Ages or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first Age as you speak N. 108. Both which we deny and affirme that the Catholique Church of every Age carryes along with her so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour that no man who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness can chuse but clearly see the difference and behold a way so cleare ita vt stulti non errent per eam This answer is solid and evident for vs. But you who teach that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the Churches of all Ages and not for the Testimony of the present Church how will you enable all men to examine whether the Scripture and much more whether every Booke and parcell of Scripture hath bene delivered by all Churches even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church and by it include the Apostles Wherin we may vse these your owne words N. 108. This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no vnlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be vnlearned You say also How shall he an vnlearned man possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors which held always the same doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary vnless he hath first examined what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult worke than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge But I would know how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age except by the monuments and Tradition of all the Ages which intervene betwixt the first Age and his which no vnlearned can doe because he that can doe it cannot be vnlearned And so it seemes you will haue vnlearned men despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith Church and salvation Will you haue them passe as it were persaltum immediately from this present Age to the first or Primitiue Age of the Church without the helpe of writings or other meanes of the middle Ages What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes except an infallible beliefe that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre And that otherwise all will be brought to vncertaintyes euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge 32. For Answer to your N. 110. till the 122. inclusiuè I say No man indued with reason will deny the vse of Reason even in matters belonging to Faith But we deny that Reason is not to yield to Authority when assisted by Gods Grace it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide and Authority to which all must submitt and so as it were cease to be different particular men and be in a manner one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge for want wherof Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided into as many opinions as they are men of different vnderstanding and will yea one man is divided from himself as he alters his Opinions Reason then may dispose or manuduct vs to Faith but the Object into which Faith is resolved is the Divine Revelation at which Reason did point and to which it must submitt Otherwise Faith were but Opinion which even Dr Potter affirmes to be a good consequence And it should not be the Gift of God but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature and the Habit be an acquired and not infused Habit which is evidently against Scripture as I proved in the Introduction I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do as if the places which you alledg N. 116. for trying of Spirits did signify that we are to try them by humane Reason and not by the Doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke the very quintessence of Socinianisme 33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say N. 29. What good states men would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church And N. 22. What confusion to the Church what danger to the Commonwealth this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man For if it be free for every one to thinke as he pleases who will hinder him from vttering his thoughts in matters which he conceives belong to Faith and to conforme his practise to his thoughts and words And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church and sedition in the Commonwealth And therfore what you say N. 122. that men only interpret for themselves is not alwaies true but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other both Private ād Publicke Persons and Communityes if their thoughts chance to pitch vpon some object which may be cause of mischiefe 34. Howsoever N. 118.
tyme are not you true blasphemers by whose Doctrine Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy And ò impiety our Saviour had blasphemed in making himselfe the Son of God if your horrible Doctrine were true 39. Secondly you answer that Dr. Potter mght say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for 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 But then how could the Doctor say that the high Priest had a certaine priviledge from errour wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Is not that to be not only obeyed but of necessity believed which proceeds from an absolutly infallible derection Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed if his determination had beene repugnant to any Point of Faith as it might haue happened if he had no infallible direction Or will you now grant that one may and must dissemble in matters of Religion If you grant this last the ground for which you excuse Protestants from schisme falls to the ground 40. Thirdly you answer 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 chalenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truly say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doe otherwise This Answer is no more solid and no lesse repugnant to Dr. Potter than the former For he saith If any such promise from God to assiste the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for oracles without examination Now how could any mans decisions passe for oracles if the promise from God to assist him be not effectuall but that he may actually resist or reject such an assistance and so teach the contrary of that towards which he is assisted by God Therfore the Doctor must be vnderstood of such an assistance as it is certaine the party assisted will follow which is the very Priviledg which you say we chalenge though we say not that we are necessitated as you misreport vs for we know very well that there is a great difference betwixt an absolute necessity and infallibility of an effect as I haue declared hertofore And indeed to say that the high Priest had an infallible assistance which in fact might be resisted is to attribute no more to him than to every man for performing his Duty if he concurre with Gods inspirations and directions or sufficient Grace Yourselfe say N. 148. That the whole depositum of truth was commtted to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I thinke will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and euery Church Which words confirme my saying that by your interpretation the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest than to every man which yet we haue seene to be directly against his words and meaning and that he ascribes that to the high Priest which he denyes to the Pope to whom he professes that if he granted as much as God promised to the high Priest his the Popes decisions might justly passe for oracles without examination Which surely is more than is granted to every man neither would either he or you deny to the Pope that sufficient Grace and assistance to performe his Duty which Assistance you grant to every man To your example of the wise men I answer if God did efficaciously decree that the birth of our B. Saviour should be published to the world by their eye-witnessing he gaue them such direction as in his infinite wisdome he saw they would follow de facto though without either constraint or necessity as you would not deny to be very possible if you had beene versed in solide Divinity or read and vnderstood our Catholike Authors vpon the matter of Grace 41. All that you haue from the N. 125. till 136. inclusiuè is answered already Only I will say that we do not proue the Church to be infallible because so it seemes to vs most fitt as you doe who rely meerly vpon humane discourse but seing the Question between vs is whether the Church or Scripture alone be the infallible Rule or Judge of Faith if we proue that the Church is vsefull for such a purpose and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule it followes that not the Scripture can be such a Rule but that the Church must be a Judge of Controversyes Thus all your roving arguments through diverse numbers vanish into nothing 42. In the end of your N. 126. you say that Charity Maintayned inferred vainly that with monthes and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered Her Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversyes which yet is a true consequence if as Charity Maintayned expressly sayes as the Church by little and litle received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility Protestants grant that after the canon was perfited infallibility ceased to be in the Church and why must they not say that as Bookes of Scripture were written so she by degrees lost her infallibility as being needeless for those points which grewe to be evidently declared by those Bookes For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written the Church wholy lost infallibility and heere enters your conceypt that to him to whom the way is cleare a guide is not necessary Therfore the evidence of Scripture made infallibility in the Church vnnecessary 43. In your N. 137. 138. you dissemble the force of Ch Ma his Argument which is the Church was once indued with infallibility therfore you cannot affirme that she lost it without alledging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion which with you who rely vpon Scripture alone ought to be a convincing Argument Your fond instance about the King of Sweden with the rest of that N. 138. hath beene answered already 44. I need say little to your N. 139.140 having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls And to your words N. 140. directed to Charity Maintayned For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility in some Points and not in others that is a wild notion of your owne which we haue nothing to doe with I Answer if you meane to defende the cause of Potter or other Protestants and not of Socininians only you must of necessity haue to doe with that wild notion For seing it must be granted that before Scripture was written the Church was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall because otherwise we
Living Guide to them who haue and belieue the Scripture Wherby you must signify that to those who either haue not Scripture or haue not sufficient reason to belieue it it is all one as if Scripture had never beene written and consequently that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide Nay men could not haue had sufficient reason to belieue infallibly the Scripture except for the Authority of the Church of God which therfore must be believed to be absolutely infallible before any Scripture be believed which is directly contradictory to your saying that the necessity of an infallible Guide is grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture For contrarily if we haue and belieue Scripture we must first belieue an infallible Church independently of that supposition and vpon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend 57. But it seemes this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you And therfore N. 146. 147. 148. you say That in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolique Preaching 58. This I haue answered hertofore and told you that when the Fathers alledge the Authority of the Church or Tradition they suppose the Church to be absolutly infallible and not only that accidentally she teaches at that tyme the truth which had beene no proofe but a meere petitio principij For if the Church might erre as you say she hath done the Heretikes against whom the Fathers wrote would easily haue answered that all Churches might erre and had erred in such or such particular Points and how could you or any Protestant impugne such an Answer supposing once the Church could erre When Luther appeared he forsooke the Faith and Communion of all Churches vpon pretence that they all agreed in errours against Scripture and how do you now tell vs that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other but Apostolicall Preaching In this manner hertofore I retorted against you the saying which you alledge out of Tertullian Variasse debuerat c If the Churches had erred they could not but haue varied but that which is one amongst so many cannot be errour but Tradition That seing all Churches agreed in a beliefe contrary to the Faith of Protestants we must affirme that the thing which is one among so many can not by errour but Tradition And your words here add a particular strength to my retortions while you say that the agreement and vnity of Churches about the Fundamentalls of Faith is a good assurance that what they so agree in comes from the common fountaine of Apostolique Preaching For those Heretikes might haue answered that the errours of the Church which they impugned were not Fundamentall as we haue proved that you say the errours of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared were not Fundamentall and so the assurance taken from vnity in Fundamentalls could be no Argument against them Besides I pray you reflect on your saying that Protestants departed not from the whole Church because they were a part therof and they departed not from themselves and then you cannot but see that those Heretikes in S. Irenaeus his tyme might haue sayd all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith seing we who are a part of the Church do not agree with the rest and therfore the agreement which you speake of is of no force against vs but you must proue by some other kind of Argument that our doctrines are false just as Protestants answer vs when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther when he first appeared Wherfore I must still inferr that it is not the actuall or accidentall agreement but the constant ground therof that is the infallibility of the Church that must assure vs what is Orthodoxe and what is Hereticall doctrine Moreover whereas you say In S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith I beseech you informe vs how it could be otherwise then how can it be otherwise now how shall it be otherwise for the tyme to come or for any imaginable tyme than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentalls of Faith Seing you professe through your whole Booke that if they faile in Fundamentalls they cease to be Churches and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentalls as for all men to agree in the essence of man And you might as well haue sayd that at S. Irenaeus his tyme the Definition did agree or was all one with the Definitum as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentalls If therfore it was easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church in S. Irenaeus his tyme as he affirmes and you grant it will be no lesse easy to doe it in these our tymes seing the Church can never faile in Fundamentall Points of Faith and so it was easy for Luther and his companions to haue received the truth or rather to haue retained the truths they found in the Church seing she was a true Church and consequently did not erre in Fundamentall Points From whence it followes that when S. Irenaeus saith the Apostles haue most fully deposited in the Church as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth it must be vnderstood that she cannot but keepe that depositum sincere for Fundamentall Points even according to Protestants and you say here N. 164. The visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church in which sense that depositum is not committed to private persons though otherwise never so qualifyed and therfore all that you haue N. 148. is of no force even in the Principles of Protestants And then further seing indeed any errour against divine Revelation is damnable and without Repentance destroyes salvation as you grant it is impossible that the Church which must needs enjoy all things necessary to salvation as we haue heard you even now saying the visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven It is I say impossiblle that the Church can fall into any damnable Errour but must be vniversally infallible Which is vnanswerably confirmed by your doctrine that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall and so we cannot know that she failes not to propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven vnless we belieue Her to be infallible in all Points of Faith as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And here againe how could you
say that in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other than Apostolique Preaching How I say could you speake thus your doctrine considered that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall and so we cannot know whether Churches be at an agreement in them and consequently cannot from such an agreement in Fundamentalls haue a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from the fountaine of Apostolique Preaching Every where you are found clearly to contradict yourselfe 59. In answer to your N. 149.150.151.152.153 I will first set downe the words of Charity Maintayned and then answer what you object Thus saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 71. N. 25. The doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of itselfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficiēt ground for infallible Faith nor a meete Judge of Controversyes If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interterpretations of Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all Controversyes of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversyes although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute another Judge of Controversyes beside Scripture alone 60. Against this discourse you object with great pompe of words If we Catholiks haue certaine and infallible meanes for the choyse of the Church then we are able with infallibility to determine all Controversyes of Faith although we pretend to make the Church our Guide And then say you N. 149. We constitute another Iudge of Controversyes besides the Church alone nay every one of vs makes himselfe a chooser of his owne Religion and of his owne sense of the Churches decrees which very thing we so highly condemne in Protestants 61. Answer we haue certaine meanes to belieue with an infallible Faith that the Catholique Church is an infallible Judge of controversyes as we haue proved hertofore at large in diverse Occasions But then to say that by this meanes i.e. by believing the Church to be the Judge of controversyes we are able of our selves with infallibility to determine all controversyes and do constitute another Iudge of controversyes besides the Church alone I am so farr from vnderstanding it that to me it seemes no better than non-sense as a man who in some cause makes choyse of a Iudge whom he believes to be just wise and in every respect fit for such an office cannot be sayd to constitute another judge beside him of whom he makes choise nor to make himselfe Iudge Do you not teach that the Church proposes to vs Canonicall Scripture and that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and yet you will not inferr from thence that the Church is a Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and not Scripture alone It is you who here N. 153 say for the latter part of this inference that every one makes himselfe judg of controversyes we acknowledge and embrace it We do make ourselves Iudges of controuersyes And this you must grant not only for the choyse of your Religion but for the sense of Scripture and consequently for determining all controversyes of Faith and so you are Iudges of controversyes as Ch Ma inferred wheras Catholikes in all controversyes hold themselves obliged to follow the determination of the Church and not of their owne vnderstanding as you doe How farr we may and do make vse of Reason in matters of Religion we haue declared aboue And even yourselfe Pag 376. N. 56. speaking of Scripture say Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath sayd so therfore it is true Which words though they cannot be spoken sincerely and with consequence by you who resolue Faith into humane probable Arguments of reason yet they shew that even in reason Reason ought to submitt to Authority We haue also shewed the difference between the Scripture which is always the same and the Decrees of the Church which in all occasions can clearly declare Her meaning if any difficulty occurre about her former Decrees or Definitions 62. But I pray where did Charity Maintayned frame this Argument which you N. 150. terme a transparent fallacy Protestants haue no meanes to interpret without errour obscure and ambiguons places of Scripture therfore plaine places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith You know there neither is nor can be any Question at all whether plaine places be not plaine to those to whom they are plaine nor whether such plaine places may not be a sufficient ground of Faith in respect of persons to whom and Matters wherin they are plaine The Point is and you know it to be so whether scripture be plaine in all Points necessary to be believed which we deny and you often affirme but can never be able to proue and I haue demonstrated that even those Texts which you pretend to be most plaine and expresly alledge for instances of such plainesse are not such but containe difficulty if we respect the sense and not the bare words which may be plaine to Pagans Jewes Turkes and to all who vnderstand the language in which Scripture was written And therfore you do not satisfy your owne Demand wherin you speake thus to Charity maintayned If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these plaine places I aske you againe can you be sure that you vnderstand what I or any man else sayes They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they haue sufficient assurance that they vnderstood at any tyme what they would haue them doe If not to what end did they heare them If they could why may not we be as well assured that we vnderstand sufficiently what we conceiue plaine in their writings 63. Answer If he who speakes be not sufficiently vnderstood he may be asked and he who askes may be satisfyed by a further declaration of the speaker which holds not in Scripture as I am forced often to repeate Besides when things are spoken the present Tyme Place Argument and other circumstances may giue much more light than when they are barely written devested of such helpes In which case if a word can be found but once in the whole Bible to signify such or such a thing perhaps it may breede a doubt whether in other places it be not so taken of which no doubt would haue beene made in case that in all places it had the same signification Yea we see
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
Controversyes Sir I beseech you when you write againe doe vs the favour to write nothing but Syllogismes for I find it still an extreme trouble to find out the concealed propositions which are to connect the parts of your enthymems As now for example I profess vnto you I am at my wits end and haue done my best endeavour to find some glue or sodder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together and at length am forced to giue it over and cannot doe it 54. Answer If you were in a condition to reply I would advise you to write not Syllogismes or enthymems but with truth Christian modesty and humility If there be any obscurity in Charity Maintayned you did not find but make it by breaking the thred of his discourse and disjoyning into severall Numbers of Sections or Yours that which is delivered in that one continued N. 16. which you impugne For having proved that according to the grounds of Protestāts they before they address themselves to the Church must know what Points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her And then to confute this Doctrine of Protestants he saieth S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saieth he Epist 118. the Church through the whole world practice any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness And in an other place he saieth Lib 4. de Bapt Chap 24. That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councells but hath alwaies been kept is most rigthly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority Now Sr. I beseech you doe vs the favour to declare whether these words of S. Austine doe not proue that we are to learne of the Church and her Traditions and not presume to teach her Which was the very thing which Cha Ma affirmed and proved not by any Syllogisme or enthymem but by a continued discourse as men are wont to doe which yet might be easily drawne into a Syllogisme or some other Lawfull Forme of Logicall Argument if need were as any true Discourse may be so reduced 55. All that you haue N 44.45.46 containes no difficulty which may not be answered out of the grounds which I haue Laied heretofore Tertullian is rightly alledged for Traditions in generall but to the Church belongs the office of judging in particular what be Lawfull and Apostolicall or divine Traditions and not humane invētions Neither can it be prejudiciall to Traditions in generall that some haue bene lost as I hope you will not deny some Bookes of Scripture to be Divine though some haue bene lost and some conterfaited In your N. 46. you thought it best to dissemble what Ch. Ma. alledges out of Withaker De Sacra Script Pag 678. concerning an Authority of S. Chrysostom for Traditions I answer that this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father 56. In your N. 47. you spend many words about a sentence of S. Austine which that you may overcome with more ease you with a pettie policy divide from the other places which Ch Ma in the same N. 16. cites out of the same Saynt one place strengthening an other Whosoever reades with due consideration your long discourse will finde that your ayme was covertly to vent your Socinianisme against the Church and openly contradict S. Austine while you pretend to answer the sentences which Cha. ma. cited out of him which are these Epist 119. the Church being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good life you say That because S. Austine sayes the Church doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life Ch. Ma. concludes that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so And then you add But though the Argument hold in Logick a non posse and non esse yet I never heard that it is would hold back againe a non esse ad non posse The Church cannot doe this therefore it does it not followes with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall neuer doe it this I belieue will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same I anuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the thing you enquire of must he of that third kind of things which are different in diverse places Let euery one therfore doe that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring vp any custome that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former 57. Answer S. Austines meaning to be that the Church neither doth nor can approue any thing against Faith or good life appeares by the very Epist 1 18. next before to the same Iannarius as you speak where he saieth If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnes Where you see the Saynt speakes not only de facto but de jure what ought to be done and therfore as I saied no wonder if you divided the Sentences of S. Austine which you found set downe by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 16. Besides you should know that in matters belonging to doctrine of Faith an indefinite Proposition ordinarily is equivalent to an vniversall as for example God approves not sinne the Church ere 's not in fundamentall Points of Faith Works of Christian Piety require the assistance of Gods Grace He that believes not shall be damned c And indeed how could S. Austine say vniversally of all tymes and places without limitation the Church doth not this but by supposing that it is certaine she will never doe it which must implie some particular Priviledg of Divine assistance securing her from doing it For if he spoke only of a casuall and contingent thing for a determinate tyme he could not be sure of what he affirmed seing it might be done in some place without his knowledg and whosoever vnpartially considers these words The Church does not this will confess that they signify she never does it and that something is attributed to Her which agrees not to private persons casually not doing a thing Which also appeares by the Antithesis he puts betweene the Church and chaffe and cockle that is imperfections or superstitions of which he speaks Your Argument taken from a particular Church is of no force For you confess S. Austine speaks of things indifferent and rhen I grant that no particular Church can bring vp any custome against Faith or good manners as long as she practises only
things indifferent that is neither commanded nor prohibited But as for the thing it self S. Austine never speaks of particular Churches as we haue heard him speak of the vniversall both in this place of which we treate and in other sentences alledged by Ch. Ma. in the saied N. 16. and the Promises of our Saviour were made to the vniversall Church Yea you confess that S. Austine speaking even in this place of those things which he dislikes saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church which words declare that the Scripture Generall Councells the Custome of the vniversall Church and consequently the Church of God can never be saied to approue any such presumptions as S. Austine calls them which he never saieth of particular Churches And therfore when you say that superstitions may in tyme take such deepe roote as to pass for vniversall customes of the Church you contradict S. Austine and that the world may see you doe it plainely and as I may say in actu signato and not only exercito but to his face you take his owne words Consuetudine vniversae Ecclesiae roboratum corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church and say that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austines tyme which circumstance of tyme is to be noted to shew how directly you contradict him prevailed so farre as to be corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and Authority not oily of an vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition And which is more in other places of your Booke you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition not only to S. Austines tyme but even to himself though both imputations be most false and it is strang that through your whole Book you do not so much as once offer any one proofe thereof And yet to shew how causelesly and intemperately you declaime against the Church of S. Austines tyme that you might discredit every Church of every Age and so of all Ages though Protestants commonly hold that the Church was pure in S. Austines tyme you confess he saieth they were not against Faith and only vnprofitable burdens But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem sanamque doctrinam he expresly declares that the truth is to be professed Yea even when there is question not whether a vaine thing be to be permitted but whether a good thing ought to be omitted he saieth Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat vt majora studiosoruÌ„ lucra sperand a sint quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda sine dubitatione faciend um est Now if you be so indiscretely zealous as to say that no inconvenient things are in any case to be tolerated not for feare to offend or for humane respects but for avoiding greater evill you impugne our Saviour and not his Church only who Matth. 13.29.30 forbids the servants to gather vp the cockle least perhaps gathering vp the cockle you may root vp the wheat also togeather with it Suffer both to grow vntill the harvest And you do very wickedly in comparing the observing this advise of our Blessed Saviour to that which He reprehended in the Scribes and Pharises for teaching and not only tolerating perforce vaine things as the washing of pots c Did not the Apostles tolerate for some tyme even after they had received the holy Ghost some Observances of the Mosaicall Law till they became to be deadly as if without them the law of Christ had not beene sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion And for that cause S. Paule saieth stand and be not holden in againe with the joake of servitude Galat. 5. V. 1. and therefore you do absurdly apply against the Church of Christ those words of the Apostle especially seing you confess that those foolish observances which S. Austine dislikes were not against Faith as he saieth expressly that it cannot be found quomodo contra Fidem sint and which is the maine point that they were never decreed by any generall Councell or practised or approved by the vniversall Church which is only our Question Yourself say Pag 301. N. 101. that S. Austine supposed that the publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is vnpolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true of their Communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And towards the end of the same number you say The Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Terâ—ullian variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Therefore you must either free the Church of that tyme from errour or the Donatists from Schisme I haue beene longer in answering this Objection in regard it containes hiddenly more Socinian venome against the Church than appeares at the first sight 58. And now it will be easy to answer your N. 48. wherin you speak thus to Charity Maintayned But you will say not with standing all this S. Austin here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against Faith or good life and so long you may rest securely vpon it What Do you now grant that S. Austine here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue c. Which is the very thing which even now you objected against Cha Ma as if S. Austine had neither saied so not that it could be deduced from what he saied You goe forward and say Yea but S. Austine tells vs in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vaine superstitions and those vrged more severely than the commandements of God and whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeale to our Saviours words before cited and to the concent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it right we shall finde that the Church is not truly saied only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and a farre greater publiquely avowed and practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet do so I desire you to informe me 59. Answer you seeke to deceyue the ignorant by leading them into a misvnderstanding of the word tolerate as if it did signify a voluntary permission of a thing when it is in our power to hinder it where as the Church doth only tolerate abuses in that sense as our Saviour teaches that
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
a necessity of some body to deliver it Neither can I discover how this argument is not against yourselfe who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith and that the article which doth concerne the Church is none of those necessary points from whence it follow that the perfection of the Creed that is the beliefe of all necessary articles excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church For it implyes contradiction that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed and yet some other points should be necessary or that a point not necessary should be necessary Neither is this in your grounds to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed but only to exclude a necessity of believing that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church which you say N. 34. is not a fundamentall article and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke You add much lesse can I discover any shew of reason why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnder stand you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary therfor their is no need to belieue in God But who makes any such generall or causall inference Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary rather we must say the contrary Because it containes divers necessary points therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence the Creed containes all necessary articles togeather with some not necessary Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God with that of the Church since the one is the most necessary article of all others and the other in your opinion is not necessary The rest of your discourse in this Number serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary all other Creeds and Catechismes are superfluous but expresly called it a poore consequence and yet that it was as good as Potters which must be to this effect It is enough vpon the Doctours supposition not in truth or it is only necessary to belieue the article of the Church Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed 66. In your N. 81. you are pleased to spend words in vaine D. Potter says As well nay better they might haue given vs no article but that and sent vs to the Church for all the rest Ch. Ma. having first proved this inference to be of no force by way of superrogation grants the thing inferred not absolutely but thus farr which words you leaue out and yet they overthrow all that you say here that de facto our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church by her to be taught and by her alone because she was before the Creed and Scriptures and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed holy Scripture vnwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant as might haue been apparent if you had not omitted his first words Thus farr and not farther nor so farr as you would needs make him to haue pretended 67. Your N. 82.83 haue been answered already For if Dr. Potter meant that the article of the Church might be sufficient as containing all things necessary to be believed and that therfor we needed not the Creed Ch. Ma. sayth truly it is no good argument The Creed containes not all things necessary and that article of the Church is in rigour sufficient Therfor the Creed is not profitable or if the Doctour meant that the article of the Church were enough because the Church afterward would teach all things by Creeds or Catechismes c. that were but to leaue the Creed and afterward to come to it and indeed to tell vs that the Church must doe that which had beene done already and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed in all necessary points of beliefe you doe indeed overthrow it while you speake to Ch. Ma. in this manner Supposing the Apostles had written â—hese Scriptures as they haue written wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that doctrine which they did preach and done all other things as they haue done besides the compossng their simbol I say if your doctrine weretrue they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never coÌ„posed their simbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians and those that are not so but in steed therof had delivered this one proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good inteÌ„ts aÌ„d purposes the RomaÌ„ Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith who sees not that according to this discourse of yours the Apostles assuring vs that the scripture is infallible aÌ„d evideÌ„t in all necessary points de facto haue done as much service to the Church as you say they would haue done by that article I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible For this evidence of Scripture being supposed you teach that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church when the way is plaine of it selfe And if notwithstanding this your doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture alone the Creed is not vnprofitable and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church by giving vs both the Creed and Scripture So I say that one article of the Church togeather with the Creed had been more profitable and of greater service then that Article alone yea the Church as I sayd must haue delivered some Creed and it was a great service to vs that the Apostles had done it to her hand If you deny this you must deny the Creed and Scripture to be de facto more profitable then the Scripture alone and so the Creed shall be of no profit For I suppose if either the Creed or Scripture be not profitable you will say it is the Creed rather then the Scripture If you say the articles of the Creed being clearly but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture as Potter speakes haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed which therfor is of great vse I reply that by this answer you teach vs to confute your argumeÌ„t by saying that as Scripture is too large for a Creed or an abridgment so
schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundamētall ād not fūdamēntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God ād so in fact all points being fūdamētall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue givē a greater C Ma sayd that Luther ād his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religiō some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming 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 condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther 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 Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation ād not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written
than words even that Maximianus who succeeded your wicked great Grandfather Nestorius in the Sea of Constantinople was a monk and a holy man and farre from being a parasite and an Embassage was sent to Rome from him the Emperour and people in congratulation of the victory gotten chiefly by meanes of Pope Caelestinus against Nestorius all which declared the Authority of the Roman Church 1200 yeares agoe though you tell vs you cannot beleeue it aÌ„d though you take notice of Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius yet you thought fit to dissemble this Embassage c. Whereof more may be seene in Baronius Ann 431.432 Your answer given N. 37. to the Anthority cited by Ch. Ma. out of John Patriarch of Constantinople cannot satisfy any who reads his words and your answer which is so evident that I need say no more 34. For answer to your N. 38.39.40.41 if in any occasion particularly in this I must intreate the Reader not to trust your summing vp the Discourse of Ch Ma N. 20.21.22.23 but to trust only his owne eyes which if he doe I am sure he will finde all that you object against vs in the saied Numbers to be answered already when we proved that Faith is the Gift of God and that in the ordinary course of Gods Providence it is exauditu by the preaching of Pastors Prelats Doctors c. And the necessity of a perpetuall succession of Bishops in the true Church besides what hath bene saied heretofore appeares by the confession of the best learned Protestants as may be seene in Brereley Tract 2. Sect 6. and Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect 4. and Tract 2. Cap 2. Sect 3. Subdivis 2. No man can doubt but that God may teach vs in what manner he pleases but seing de facto he will haue men to be taught by men aÌ„d that Faith is his Gift as we proved in the Introduction we shall be sure never to attaine this inward gift otherwise than by those outward meanes nor can we belieue the Doctrine of Christ without the Introduction of Teachers appointed and taught by his Holy Spirit Neither doth if follow that by this meanes one should be necessitated to be an Heretique because that there should haue bene a perpe â—uall Succession of believers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our power as you argue most weakely and seing Protestants teach that Heresie is a deviation from Scripture and that it is not in the power of man to conserue Scripture incorrupted Protestants may be Heretiques whether they will or no if your objection were of any force And why do you not make this argument Men cannot sinne vnles they exist and be in their right witts But that a man be in his right witts or exist is not in his Power for who can be his owne creator Therefore sinning or not sinning depends not on these things As therefore men may be Heretiques and sinners because de facto God conserves Scripture and preserves men in their being so seing he hath promised to conserue his Church without errour against Faith and gives every one sufficient grace to follow her Directions if they refuse to doe so they become Heretiques by their owne free-will not by any necessity Your saying By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one is manifestly impertinent seing the Direction of Faith is not the personall life but the publik Definition and doctrine of such as God hath appointed to be our Guides and whom he hath commanded vs to obey 36. Seing your N. 39. containes only a heap or rabble of demands without telling vs what you hold I were much to blame If I would spend time about theÌ„ especially I having proved out of Fathers and learned Protestants that the true Church cannot subsist without a succession of Bishops which is the point you desire should be proved before you answer the argument of Ch. Ma. and your owne demands whereof I must tell you in generall some are ridiculous some dangerous and tending to confusion some begg the Question some containe shrewd insinuations against the necessity of Bishops some are evidently fals and all of no force against vs. You ask whether Ch Ma in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa do not forget himself and contradict what he saied N 17. that they had some of their Sect residing in Rome But this is a poore contradiction For even D. Potter Pag 125. cites S. Austine affirming that the Donatists held the Church to haue perished through the whole world except in their Sect in Africa and Pag 126. the Doctor denies not but they had some of their Sect in Rome and you expresly affirme it yet because they were so few as could not make any considerable number it may well be saied that their Sect de facto was confined to Africa as they were wont to say and as Ch Ma must speake in their sense concerning them and he is expresly warranted by S. Optatus Lib 2. saying that the Donatists Bishop in Rome was Episcopus sine populo Non enim grex aut populus appellandi fuerant pauci qui inter quadraginta quod excurrit basilicas locum vbi colligerent non habebant 37. All that is materiall in your N 40. hath bene answered heretofore to your small credit You haue no reason to alter the Translation of Ch. Ma. of the words of Tertullian How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith Quid vetisimile est vt tot ac tantae in vnam Fidem erraverint Which you say should be translated should erre into one Faith For it is certaine that your obscure expression should erre into one Faith must signifie that it is not likely so many different Churches agreeing should erre in that Faith in which they agree which is according to the cleare expression of Ch Ma And it is cleare that the reason why they could not erre into one Faith must be because error could not consist with one Faith for if it could they might erre into one Faith and so your Translation if it be good must be beholding to his expression You say in the Pag 362. that the Roman Church is Catholique to herself alone and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches and in this Pag 332. N. 11. you say 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 Which sentences put together conclude the Roman Church to want what is essentiall to a Church and yet you expresly teach in other parts of your Book that she errs not in essentiall or fundameÌ„tall points How will you saue yourself from a contradiction in this As also in your saying that it is not Heresy to oppose any truth but only such a truth as in an essentiall part
denieth him in all seing there is one only Christ the same in all The Magdeburgians in Praefat Centur 6. They are Anti-Christs and divels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostates Mort Lib 1. Apolog. Cap 7. Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must deny them the name of Christians Yourself Pag 23. N 27. speaking of Uerityes contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture say He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so Which is more than Catholique Divines teach who affirme that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith by an humane opinion not purelie for Divine Revelation and so you also must vnderstand that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture but if he belieue them it must be with mixture of some other reason and so fall farre short of Divine supernaturall Faith Wittenbergenses in Refutat Ortodox Consensus As he who keepeth all the Law but offendeth in one is witness saint Iames guilty of all So who believeth not one word of Christ though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed yet believeth nothing and is damned and incredulous Schlusselburgh Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin Art 1. Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat He corupteth the whole doctrin who subuerteth it in the least Article Most truly saied Ambrose E pist ad demetriadem he is out of the number of the Faithfull and lot of Saints who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth Calvin Ephes 4. V. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he had saied Christ cannot be divided Faith cannot not be parted Perkins in Explicat Symboli Colum 512 Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue As I saied of your words so I say of these that they containe more than Catholiques affirme and to giue them a true sense they must be vnderstood that he faileth and erreth in as much as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith Spalatensis contra Suarem C. 1. N. 7 Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction and consequently it is no true Church no not visible in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers Tertullian de praescrip Cap 2. saieth Heresies are to destroy Faith and bring everlasting death And Cap 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians S. Cyprian Epist 73. saieth that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle Heretiks are called Anti-christs S. Austine Enchirid Cap 5. Christ in name only is found with any Heretiks S. Chrysostom cited by Ch Ma N. 33. in Galat 17. saieth that the least error in matter of Faith destroieth Faith Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subverted For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith is wholy corrupted But enough of this You do but cavill and yourself know you doe so in saying to Ch Ma that there is not one Catholique Divine who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith For you cannot be ignorant that when this Question is propounded by Divines it is necessarily vnderstood of culpable error otherwise it could be no Question And whereas you say There is not one Catholique Divine who delivers c. Your self did reade in Ch Ma S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner 2. 2. Q. 5. à 3. For having propounded the Question Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith may retaine Faith of other Articles in his Conclusion he saieth It is impossible that Faith even informed or Faith without Charity remaine in him who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith although he confess all the rest to be true What say you to this Is not S. Thomas one Catholique Divine or is he not one instar omnium And yet he both proposes and answers this Question supposing not expressing that he speakes of culpable errour and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques as also Ch Ma in this very Number expresly specifies Protestants whom you know we belieue to erre culpably against many revealed Truths You goe forward and speak to Ch Ma in this manner They Catholique Divines all require not yourself 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 vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue But you are more bold than well advised in taking vpon you to know what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous in telling Ch Ma what his opinion is I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching that all Divines hold that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith must be revealed publiquely Who is ignorant that many great Divines teach that he were properly an Heretique who should reject or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such by never so secret meanes Do not yourself heere cite Estius whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime verity For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation Do you not remember that Zacharie was punished for his slowness in believing a revelation made privately to him and of a particular object You speak very confusedly when you say They Catholique Divines require that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue For all Catholique Divines agree that it is Heresie to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church though other wise it be not comāded to be believed ād you do not only teach through your whole Book that it is damnable to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God but you saie further that whatsoever one is obliged not to disbelieue at any time at the same tyme he is oblged to belieue it which latter part though it be false as I haue shewed heretofore yet it shewes that you must affirme that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue positively and explicitely all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God so that this
your saying is not only confused but false in the opinyon of Catholique Divines and much more in your opinyon 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours I haue proved in the Introduction that Charity being a supernaturall Habit infused only by the Holy Ghost and not acquired by any naturall Acts cannot be knowne by humane experience to be present or absent and being a loue of God aboue all things cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas 2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp where he cites S. Aug saying Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur absente autem continuò tenebratur à quo non locorum intervallo sed voluntatis aversione disceditur 46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C Ma Though you cry it vp for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I find it a serious graue prolix 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 vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue or rule or a necessary condition of Faith which you know we flatly deny and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation 47. Answer What Reader will not conceiue out of your words that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag as you express by Achilles Gorgons head insulting c Whereas he without any evenleast commendation saies positively that S. Thomas proves his conclusion first by a parity with Charity which is destroyed by every deadly sinne and then by a farther reason which there he setts downe at large in the words of that holy Saint 2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3. and is comprised in this Summe Ad 2. A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason to wit for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of Faith Your pride is intollerable in despising the Reason of S. Thomas as a serious graue prolix nothing and your saying is ridiculous that he beggs the main Question between vs about the infallibility of the Church For how could he begg that Question which when he wrote was granted and taught by all Divines But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument which consists in this that if one assent to one Object for some motiue or Reason and assent not to another for which there is the same motiue or reason it appeares that he Assents to this other not for that motiue common to both but for some other particular Reason Now though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church because de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths yet his argument is the same though it be applied to Scripture And therfore the same holy Doctor 1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2. without mentioning the Church saieth Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt and we haue heard yourself saying Pag 23. He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so Yea D. Lawd P. 344. saieth expresly We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith for the same formall reason in all namely because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word an by his Churches Ministration 48. To this āswer which I haue confuted you add to vse your words a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius vpon 3. sē 23. dist § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas to be a vain fancy that he saieth The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed Which is sufficient for our main Question that according to this Doctor the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church which must certainly and not only probably haue Divine supernaturall Faith which is absolutely necessary to saluation necessitate medij Besides his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique is not sufficient for salvation and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved His words are Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere sed Fidei partem aliquam Fides enim significat aliquod integrum omnibus suis partibus completum vt sit idem Fides simpliciter Fides Catholica Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem Catholicum constituat Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse Mark Fidem amisisse juxta Apostolum 1. Tim. 1. Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still This discourse I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas being vnderstood as I declared formally that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes whatsoever that meanes be 49. To the other argument of S. Thomas taken from a parity of faith with the Habit of Charity which is lost by every deadly sinne Estius doth not answer and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated And this Argument is stronger than perhaps appeares at the first sight For Faith hath no less connection and relation to the object of Faith than Charity to the object of Charity And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne whereby God is grievously offended so we must say of the habit of Faith that it is not compatible with any error whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected and as it is essentiall to Charity as long as it exists to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God so Faith must of its owne nature beate downe and reject all errour against the Divine Testimony or Revelation that both for will and vnderstanding we may say
Thomas 1.2 Q. 33. art 2. proposes this Question vtrum delectatio causet sui sitim vel desiderium mark how he declares thirst to signify a desire and in corp answers si per sitim vel desiderium intelligatur sola intensio affectus tollens fastidium sic delectationes spirituales maxime faciunt sitim vel desiderium suiipsarum and adds cum pervenitur ad consummationem in ipsis Behold a desire of-things present and possest Which he declares by the words which I cited out of Eccles. 24. Qui bibunt me adhuc sitient and proves it Quia etiam de Angelis qui perfecte Deum cognoscunt delectantur in ipso dicitur 1. Pet. 1. quòd desiderant in eum conspicere Vpon which words Cornelius à Lapide saieth devoutely Angeli in Spiritum Sanctum prospicere desiderant id est desideranter cupidè prospiciunt desiderando satiantur satiando desiderant and cites to the same purpose these elegant words of S. Gregory 18. Morall C. 28. Deum Angeli vident videre desiderant sitiunt intueri intuentur Ne autem sit in desiderio anxietas desiderantes satiantur ne sit in satietate fastidium desiderant Et desiderant sine labore quia desiderium satietas comitatur satiantur sine fastidio quia ipsa satietas ex desiderio semper accenditur And these other out of venerable Bede Contemplatio divinae praesentiae ita Angelos beatificat vt ejus semper visa gloria satientur semper ejus dulcedinem quasi novam insatiabiliter esuriant 10. 2. You say to Ch Ma Whereas you say That in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever to preferre the spirituall good of the whole world before his owne soule in saying this you seeme to me to condemne one of the greatest Acts of Charity of one of the greatest Saints that ever was I mean S. Paul who for his brethren desired to be Anathema from Christ. And as for the Text alledged by you in confirmation of your saying what doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the dammage of his owne soule It is nothing to the purpose For without all Question it is not profitable for a man to do so but the Question is whether it be not Lawfull for a man to forgoe and part with his owne particular profit to procure the vniversall spirituall and eternall benefit of other 11. Answer I must truly affirme that all the difficulty I can haue in confuting you is to conjecture what you would haue or how to reconcile your Contradictions Ch Ma saied In things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case to prefer the spirituall good of others before his owne soule And is not this evidētly true Hath not God committed to every man the care of his owne soule and commanded him not to damne it for all eternity And haue we not heard you saying N. 5. that the true Reason why one thing ought to be loved more then an other is because God commands vs so do so No man can be damned or forfeit his salvation except by sinne and I hope you will not say it is lawefull to sinne which were to say it were a sinne and yet were no sinne Even in this place to the saying of Ch Ma It is directly against Charity to ourselves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvations you answer this is true But so this is also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way help or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous I haue proved aboue this last part of your saying to be false but for the present I say if to omit any thing necessary to salvation be against the vertue of Charitie to ourselves it must be a sinne and therefore not to be committed in any case for any respect of the temporall or spirituall good of the whole world and so yourself contradict yourself and by saying it is against Charity to omit any thing that may any way conduce to our salvation a fortiori you make good the saying of Ch Ma that in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case to prefer the spirituall good of the whole world before his owne soule In alledging that Text of S. Paul you doe as Heretiques are wont to doe impugning cleare truths or evident places of Scripture by some obscure and difficult Text as this of S. Paul is held by all Interpreters to be Sure I am that it can serue your turne in this sense only that S. Paul for the good of others did hartily effectually and all things considered wish to be deprived of salvation and separated from Christ and I am sure that this cannot be affirmed without blasphemy seing it must implie that S. Paul did effectually desire to commit a deadly sinne without the committing whereof he knew very well he could not de facto and effectually be separated from Christ and salvation Divers expositions of this Text may be seene in Cornelius à Lapide For the present it is sufficient to haue proved that it is very ill applied by you and which may seeme strang though heere you saie the desire of S. Paul was one of the greatest acts of Charity yet Pag 219. N. 49. you say On condition the ruptures made by them Errours might be composed I do hartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ In the same manner is confuted your evasion of the text Matth 16. V. 26. seing one cannot loose his soule except by deadly sinne and our Saviour in that Chapter doth expresly teach vs to carie our cross least otherwise we incurre eternall damnation and I hope you will not deny cut that we are obliged to avoide sinne and Hell nor that our Saviour perswaded to that which was both profitable ād best Indeed your boldness in interpreting Scripture is intollerable I will end this Number with observing First your little fervour and constancy in your owne Faith which you express in your next N. 6. in these words Sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeavour to finde it true that obedience is due to the Roman Church and am still willing to doe so For is it possible that after so many changes and even after the writing of your Book you are yet ready to leaue Protestancy What account ought others to make of your Book since yourself are so willing to abjure it Secondly I must obserue your charity towards vs Catholiques of whom in the close of this N. 6. you say To liue and die in it the Roman Church is as dangerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may doe and escape yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries
private persons and as representing the Church musâ— be differently vnderstood c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq Their authority must be believed before we can belieue what they spake or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. passim Apostles for the essentiall are and alwayes must be in the Church c. 12. n. 99. p. 782. All the Apostles commanded to preach none to write c. 2. n. 25. p. 131. The Apostles being the salt of the earth atheistically explicated by I hil c. 12. n. 91. p. 777. Apprehension taken for the first operation of the vnderstanding agrees not to Faith which is an assent or judgment taken in generall as knowledge often is it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth c. 15. n. 4. p. 886 887. How argumeÌ„ts of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty and in what sense they are the word aÌ„d voyce of God c. 1. n. 79.80 p. 95.96 Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation VVhat conditions it must haue to obtaine absolution c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. seq S. Austin rejected and alleadged by I hil for the selfe same poynt and shewed to be adversary to I hil c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq His advise for the vnderstanding of Scripture n. 201. p. 269. his sense of Tradition and of the practice of the Church n. 209. p. 274. c. 11. n. 26. p. 667. and seq VVhy he is an eyesoare to the Socinians c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against I hil his forgery c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. and seq c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. alibi saepius B. Baptisme acknowledged by Protestants neâ—essary and as required by Scripture and Antiquity c. 4. n. 60. p. 389. and seq It is to be given to children by the authority and practice of the Church ibidem p. 389. and seq The difference and absurdityes amongst Protestants concerning Baptisme c. 2. n. 39. p. 146. seq It is validly administred by Iewe or Gentill if they intend to doe what Christians doe c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptisme in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sinnes past present and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187. Beatificall vision if Faith be naturall and only probable is also naturall and may be a meere fiction c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119. To belieue only that Iesus is the sonne of God is acknowledged even by heretiques insufficient for salvation c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. VVho believes not one poynt sufficiently propounded can haue no supernaturall Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq This proved by Heretiques and Catholiques ibidem Not to belieue any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortall sinne n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker wheÌ„ I only asseÌ„t for the reason he gives or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. alibi Bellarmine viudicated from I hil his cavills c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq VVhat Byshop or Episcopus signifyes cannot evidently be knowne by Scripture alone c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Byshops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. seq Doctor Andreweâ— his contradictioÌ„ in this poynt ibidem Bishops haue no succession in England ibidem Bookes published to forwarne I hil to cleare himselfe of his vnchristiaÌ„ doctrines which he would never be induced to doe pr. n. 4. p. 2. C Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly sayd that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675. Canon of Scripture cleered from Chill his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. it should be 21. p. 663. seq The Canonicalness of the bookes of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. falsly put 953 passim alibi every Canonicall writer wrote all that was necessary for the end inspired him by the holy Ghost not all that was necessary for salvation or for the Church to belieue c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 seq ac alibi Causabons miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444 Catholiques by the confession of Protestants may be saved c. 2 n. 83 p. 185 c. 7 n. 145 p. 563 seq ac alibi No visible Church but the Catholique Romane out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. â—1 p. 522 Reasons why the Catholique Church is not to be forsaken n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could erre her errours were rather to be professed then her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 deinceps Catholiques judge charitably that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation aÌ„d PiotestaÌ„ts if they hold their Religion true should judge the like of Catholiques c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholiques guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture nor feare corruptions c. 11 n. 16 p. 659 The Catholique Church an easy way to find Christs doctrine c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible or all Christianity a fiction c. 4 n. 1 p. 352 Not Catholiques but LutheraÌ„s exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholiques freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395 Catholiques prooue their Faith without a circle Toto c. 5 but Sectaryes cannot Ibid And particularly n. 14 15 p. 437 438 Also c. 2 n. 55 p. 158 Catholiques falsly charged by Chill that they hold Faith to haue no degrees of perfection c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69 Catholique writers falsly cited by Potter as holding that Catholiques and Protestants doe not differ in the essence of Religion c. 7 n. 148 p. 567 Catholiques though falsly suposed to err their errour must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 seq Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler then themselves as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94 Certainty in the vnderâ—â—anding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 seq Ceremonies vide Rites Charity Maintayned alledged and impugned by I hil either with falsification or ommitting his arguments or with some other fraud is often shewed through this whole Booke His Booke is not answeared by I hil but new heresies broached and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity Pr n. 3 p. 1. 2 Charity highly broaken by Protestants in judginge Catholiques vncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the morall obligation of loving imposed by God c. 16 n. 6 p. 935 936 Chillingworths Tenets and consequences He holds that Faith is only a probable rationall assent I. n. 16 p. 11 seq and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous vncharitable erroneous doctrine of dangerous and pernicious consequence c. 1 n. 1 p. 37 And that it excludes all progress in charity n. 71 p. 86 That Faith may stand with Heresie I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace
obliges to vnsetlednes n. 25 p. 57 and professed himselfe was so n. 24 p. 56 This kind of Faith brings liberty of life n. 26 p. 58 destroyes Christian beleefe in all points n. 8 p. 41 fallâ—y put 45 is a certaine way to perditioÌ„ n. 106 p. 113 seq and with its fallibility infallibly damnes n. 31 p. 63 Faith of Sectaryes runns in a circle c. 5 n. 14.15 p. 437 438 Faith of Miracles mistaken by Chill for saving Faith c. 1 n. 48 p. 72 and n. 96 p. 104 105 Free-will accorded with grace I. n. 5 p. 3 n. 8 p. 5 n. 9 p. 6 n. 13 p. 8 Concerning Fundamentalls and not fundamentalls toto c. 6 Fundamentall and not fundameÌ„tall poâ—nts are distinguished by their materiall objects c. 7 n. 170 p. 585 c. what is vnderstood by them c. 6 n. 1 p. 440 Fundamentalls must be knowne by Protestants in particular n. 18 p. 449 450 Yet haue they no meanes for it Ibid The Creed can be no Catalogue of them n. 12 p. 446 I hil holds a particular Catalogue of fundamenmentalls vnnecessary aÌ„d vnpossible and contradicts himselfe much in it n. 6 p. 442 seq Contradictions of Protestants concerning fundamentalls c. 6 n. 2. 3 p. 441 To know fundameÌ„talls only Catholiques haue certaine meanes c. 6 n. 29 it is put 59 p. 456. 457 This meanes is the Church which manifests them as necessity requires and this serves for an exact Catalogue of them n. 18 p. 449 450 G How we desire to God his owne perfections c. 16 n. 9 p. 936 937 Goths converted from Gentilisme by Catholiques perverted by Arians c. 11 n. 77 p. 669 Actuall Grace necessary for all actions of piety I. n. 12 p. 7 seq To beleeue n. 16 p. 10 seq To hope n. 22 p. 17 seq For Charity n. 23 24 p. 18 For keeping the commandements and overcoming temptations n. 25 p. 19 seq For Repentance n. 27.28 p. 26 For Perseverance n. 29 p. 22 seq Habituall grace necessary to keep the commandements n. 34 p. 24 seq It is a participation of the whole divine nature n. 40 p. 27 The Elogiums of it out of H. Fathers n. 41 p. 27 28 Proved to be supernaturall aÌ„d inherent in vs n. 42 p. 28 seq It is inconsistent with mortall sinne n. 45 46 p. 32 How the Grecians haue ofteÌ„ submitted to the Roman Church and agree with her against Protestants c. 11 n. 78 p. 704 seq Only a living guide aÌ„d infallible caÌ„ keep meÌ„ from straying in Faith The necessity of such a Guide proved through this whole Booke H Three sorts of Habits c. 8. n. 11 p. 605 c. The difference betwixt infused and acquired Habits J. n. 4. p. 3 What dependance the reall entityes of naturall Habits haue one of another or of naturall acts or of supernatuall acts or habits c. 8 n. 12 p. 607 c Supernaturall Habits are nor produced by acts as naturall are but infused by God not to facilitate but to enable to produce acts and are properly rather Powers then Habits n. 13 14 p. 609 610 They are not discernable sensibly Ibid and J. n. 50 p. 35 Nor acquired or destroyed as are the naturall reall habits which are only properly habits by little and little but all at once c. 8 n. 15 p. 611 what it is that is reversed in vicious or morall habits by repentance n. 11 p. 605 c. Habituall sinne may remaine without the Phisicall habits of vice and these without habituall sinne Ibid If reall habits of vice be habituall sinne the reall habits of naturall vertues must be sanctity though acquired by force of nature which is Pelagianisme n. 15 p. 611 The efficient cause of the Habit of Faith is not actuall grace J. n. 21 p. 16 Heresie is a more grievous sinne then a meer externall false profession c. 7 n. 134 p. 555 Acknowledged for heresy by ProtestaÌ„ts to say that the Church Militant may possibly be dryven out of the world n. 143 p. 563 It is a marke of heresie to separate from the Church aÌ„d proved such by places of Fathers c. 15 n. 16 p. 897 seq Of two disagreeing in a point sufficiently proposed to both as revealed one is an hererique c. 12 n. 8. 9 p. 713 714 Heretiques old and new by strange glosses of Scripture destroy all the chief points of Christianity c. 2 n. 31 p. 137 seq They are batten of spirituall Children n. 73 p. 77 The reason of this and why they worke no Miracles c. 15 n. 41 p. 921 The Hierarchy of Protestant Bishops and Priests overthrowne by Chill c. 4 n. 31 p. 369 seq S. Hierome cleared about the Cannon of Scripture c. 11 n. 21 p. 664 seq I Jewes and Sectaryes remaining such may by I hil repentance be saved c. 10 n. 3 p 633 Meere IgnoraÌ„ce and positive errour distinguished and I hill gross mistakes in this point c. 12 n. 10 p. 714 seq The vse and worship of Images allowed by Protestants c. 7 n. 122 p. 543 Indulgences in Catholique Doctrine consistent with the feare of Purgatory and Hell c. 2 n. 84 85 p. 186 187 By them is not pardoned the guilt of sinne much less sinnes to come Ibid Who is in himselfe Infallible hath the ground of an infallible guide and may exercise it if accidentall impediments be removed c. 4 n. 88 p. 414 415 Intention required by Protestants for administring Sacraments c. 4 n. 32 p. 372 It is sufficient if it be to doe what the Church intends n. 33 p. 372 373 Other things essentially required may more easily chance to be wanting in the administration of Sacraments then intention n. 31 p. 371 S. Irenaeus notoriously falsifyed by Chillâ— c. 2 n. 161 p. 237 seq His true sense concerning the vnwritten word c. 11 n. 50 p. 683 seq His argument for the infallibility of the Church of Rome made good against Chill c. 15 n. 27 p. 906 seq Of the necessity of a living infallible judge c. 2 per totum and c. 4 ac alibi saepe Justice is a supernaturall quality infused against Pelagius in herent in vs against Calvin I. n. 39 p. 27 Proved to be so n. 42 p. 28 seq It is inconsistent with deadly sin n. 45 p. 32 seq S. Justine defended against Chill by the testimonyes of leatned Protestants c. 15 n. 31 p. 911 c. K Knowledge is differently taken but in generall any act of the vnderstanding though obscure as Faith may be called knowledge c. 15 n. 3 p. 884 seq L Doctor Lawds discourse about Generall Councells c. 7 n. 40 p. 481 seq His testimony and of other chief ProtestaÌ„ts cited by him that Romane Catholiques haue what is necessary for salvation n. 151 p. 572 Liberius Pope never subscribed to herefie and what he subscribed in matter of fact against S. Athanasius he revoaked as soone as he was at liberty