soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so and therefore are not to be damned as men opposing that which they either know to be a Truth delivered in Scripture or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved as men who endeavour to find the Truth but fail of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceive impossible is very obvious and easie 14. To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contained in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knew it to be so or have no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15. To the second Whether there be in such denial any distinction between Fundamental and not-Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because those Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamental which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knows them to be so Those not-Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16. To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alledged to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more than a sufficient Summarie of those Points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17. To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that Of Persons contrary in belief one part only can be saved I answer By no means For they may differ about Points not contained in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie and a self-condemning Obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter do not take it ill that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrarie he may justly condemn you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you do that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestans themselves do in fact give testimony while they possess it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ if both the thing were not impossible in it self and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this Assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scrippture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Every single Book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferr that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded lest by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Books of the Old and New Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten than for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that to commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extol the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Judge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common-wealths besides the Laws written and unwritten customs Judges appointed to declare both the one and the other as several occasions may require 2. That the Scripture alone cannot be Judge in Controversies of Faith we gather it very clearly From the quality of a writing in general From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be believed as true and infallible From the Editions and Translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Error From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Judicature to it and finally From the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Judge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that She it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3. The name notion nature and properties of a Judge cannot in common reason agree to any meer writing which be it otherwise in it its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Judge all wise men understand a person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be applyable and able to do all this as the diversity of Controversies Persons Occasions and Circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Judge and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judge hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs so are not they fit orable to declare or be Judges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Judge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Judge because it being always the same cannot declare it self any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate Controversies in Faith than the Law
it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect Rule of it self is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a Rule is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kind as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a Rule so farr as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no Rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7. Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident Rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident Rule of Faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sun answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writting all these which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions and add them to the verities already written And Whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If she cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible Teacher of all divine verities and an infallible Interpreter of obscurities in the Faith for she cannot teach us all divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her do it and then we shall have a writting not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can do or not do no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Jesus if he had pleased could have writ us a Rule of Faith so plain and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any cleerness to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writting there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledg a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8. You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answer First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And this though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and contain all the material objects all the particular articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth contain the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the book called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants do contains all the material objects of Faith is a compleat and total and not onely an imperfect and a partial Rule 9. But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other books of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answer Every Text of Scripture though it hath the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10. The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry cosen-german to the former When the first books of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritten Tradition Therefore now also that all the books of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your Conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scripture's being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would fain confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it do so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you do not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between God's Word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that
Trents profession To receive them and the written Word with like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of milk and honey presently after Abstaining from Baths for a week after Accounting it an impiâ—ty to pray kneeling on the Lord's Day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in Chap 3. He adds another in the 4. of the Veiling of Women And then adds Since I find no law for this it follows that Tradition must have given this observation to custom which shall gain in time Apostolique Authority by the interpretation of the reason of it By these examples therefore it is declared That the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custom may be defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the goodness of the Tradition Now Custom even in civil affairs where a Law is wanting passeth for a Law Neither is it material on which it is grounded Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendation enough for a Law Moreover if Law be grounded on reason all that must be Law which is so grounded A quocunque productum Whosoever is the producer of it Do ye think it is not lawful Omni fideli for every faithful man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord says Why even of our selves judge ye not what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore censetur nec Authorem respiciens sed Authoritatem From whatsoever Tradition it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority Quicunque Traditor Any Author whatsoever is Founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the Direction then was (b) Hier. Pracepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45. No less you say is S. Chrysostom for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as Universal as the Tradition of the undoubted Books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither doth being written make the Word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the less infallible Not therefore in her Universal Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this Point when you speak you shall have an Answer but hitherto you do but wander 46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Julius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many works which our Saviour did which S. John supposes would not have been contained in a world of Books if they had been written or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much more a faithful keeper Records are than Report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitely more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his Providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the Obligation of believing them for every Obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive Interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters we shal hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinal Perron in his Discourse of Traditions having alledged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us We must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist to the Thess yet were afterwards written and in other Books of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist which was never written that he lays this injunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist But what if they did not perform their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shal we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost and he hath suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such Authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to do that which you cannot do your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what witholdeth Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can ye or dare you say this or this was this hinderance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot go then and vaunt your Church for the only Watchful Faithful Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine Faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodness of God who seeing that what was not written was in such
danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written Saint Chrysostom's counsel therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withall that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good plea to be the unwritten Word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture to be the written Word of God 47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austins who says The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good life and from hence you conclude That it never hath done so nor ever can do so But though the argument hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back à non esse ad non posse The Church cannot do this therefore it does not follows with good consequence but The Church doth not this therefore it shall never do it nor can never do it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remains that the thing you enquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore do 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 up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this Consequence hath as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austin of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor doth any thing against Faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austin according to you thought approve or dissemble or do any thing against faith or good life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely than the Commandments of God himself This Saint Austin himself professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I do infinitely grieve at that many most wholsom precepts of the divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the earth with his naked fooot then he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness Of these he sayes That they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councels nor corroborated by the Custom of the Universal Church And though not against Faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable then that of Christians And therefore he professeth of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And Ubi facultas tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so far through the indiscreet devotion of the people alwayes more prone to superstition than true piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their birth that himself though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disallow Nay the Catholique Church it self did see and dissemble and tolerate them for these are the things of which he presently says after The Church of God and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church placed between Chaff and Tares tolerates many things Which was directly against the command of the holy Spirit given the Church by S. Paul To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free and not to suffer her self to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharisees That in vain they worshipped God teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments For that laying aside the Commandments of God they held the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things Certainly that which S. Austin complains of as the general fault of Christians of his time was parallel to this Multa saith he quae in divinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt minus curantur This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviour's words The Commandments of God are laid aside And then Tam multis praesumptionibus sic pleana sunt omnia All things or all places are so full of so many presumptions and those exacted with such severity nay with Tyranny that he was more severly censured who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet than he which drowned and buried his soul in drink Certainly if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments I know not what is And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain as well as the Scribes and Pharises And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind were then already spread over the Church being different in divers places This is plain from these words of S. Austin concerning them Diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter varià ntur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not oppose it Liberiùs improbare non audeo I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholique Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemn it is to say if we judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Universal superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent Spirit to guard it from superstition and with the accomplishment of that pretended Prophecy of the Church I have set Watchmen upon thy walls O Jerusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night Besides how these Superstitions being thus nourished cherished and strengthened by the practice of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the Commandments of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deep root and spread their branches so far as to pass for Universal
would be to end suits if it were given over to the fancy and gloss of every single man 4. This difference betwixt a Judge and a Rule D. Potter perceived when more than once having stiled the Scripture a Judge by way of correcting that term he adds or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Judge From hence also it was that though Protestants in their beginning affirmed Scripture alone to be the Judge of Controversies yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the phrase and said that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Judge in Controversies A difference without a disparity The Holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us than the Scripture in which he speaks as a man speaking only Latin can be no better understood than the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say A Judge is necessary for deciding Controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say He is necessary to decide what the holy Ghost speaks in Scripture And it were a conceit equally foolish and pernitious if one should seek to take away all Judges in the Kingdom upon this nicety that albeit Laws cannot be Judges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may perform that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity understood than the Law whereby he speaketh 5. But though some writing were granted to have a priviledge to declare it self upon supposition that it were maintained in being and preserved entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserve it self nor can complain or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchful and not-erring eye to guard it by means of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure 6. And suppose it could defend it self from corruption how could it assure us that it self were Canonical and of infallible verity By saying so Of this very Affirmation there will remain the same Question still how it can prove it self to be infallibly true Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplyed demands till we rest in the external Authority of some person or persons bearing witness to the world that such or such a Book is Scripture and yet upon this Point according to Protestants all other Controversies in Faith depend 7. That Scripture cannot assure us that it self is Canonical Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in express words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whom D. Potter ranketh (a) Pag. 131. among men of great Learning and Judgment saith Of things (b) In his first book of Eccles Polity Sect. 14. p. 68. necessary the very chiefest is to know what Books we are to esteem Holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach And this he proveth by the same Argument which we lately used saying thus It is not (c) Ibid. l. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it his Word For if any one Book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to give credit unto it Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest unless besides Scripture there were something which might assure us c. And this he acknowledges to be the (d) L. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1.146 alibi Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of great learning and judgment affirmeth and demonstratively proveth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixt Article Wherein it is said of the Scripture Whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation and concerning their belief and profession of this Article they are particularly examined when they be ordained Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Covel doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonical Scriptures is desined to us not by testimony of the private Spirit which saith he being private and secret is (e) Adv. Stap. l. 2. c. 6. p. 270. to p. 357. unfit to teach and refel others but as he acknowledgeth by the (f) Adv. Stap. l. 2. c. 4. p. 300. Ecclesiastical Tradition An Argument saith he whereby may be argued and convinced what Books be Canonical and what be not Luther saith This (g) L. de cap. Bab. to 2. Witt. f. 88. indeed the Church hath that she can discern the Word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he believed the Gospel being moved by the Authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospel Fulk teacheth that the Church (h) In his Answer to a counterfeit Catholique p. 5. hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit and the Word of God from the writing of men and that this judgement she hath not of her self but of the holy Ghost And to the end that you may not be ignorant from what Church you must receive Scriptures hear your first Patriarch Luther speaking against them who as he saith brought in Anabaptism that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these (i) Ep. con Anab. ad duos Paroches to 2. Ger. Witt. men build upon a week foundation For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we have from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture 8. But now in deeds they all make good that without the Churches Authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. James Luther hath these words The (k) Praef. in epist Jac. in ed. Jenen Epist of James is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolical Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitius teacheth that the second Epistle (l) In Enchirid p. 63. of Peter the second and third of John the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James the Epistle of Jude and the Apocalyps of John are Apocryphal as not having sufficient Testimony (m) In exam Conc. Trid. part 1. p. 55. of their authority and therefore that nothing in Controversie can be proved out of these (n) Ibid. Books The same is taught by divers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alledge why they leave their Master and so many of his prime Schollers I know no better ground than because they may with as much freedom
abandon him as he was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found received in God's Church 9. What Books of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonical is not easie to affirm In their sixth Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church What mean they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical This were to make the Church Judge and not Scriptures alone Do they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of Faith By this rule of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church have excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Euseb l. 4. hist c. 26 Melito Asianus (p) In Synop. Athanasius and (q) In carm de genuinis Scrip. Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Jews (r) Li. de serv arb con Eras tom 2. Wit sol 471. place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Judge doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (Å¿) In lat serm conviviali us Franc. in 8. imp Anno 1571. book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides upon a tong reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Ger. colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro ed. Fran. tit de lib. vet nov Test fol. 379. saith further that the said book was not written by Solomon but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Jews Bible out of many books heaped into one work perhaps out of the Library of King Prolomaeus And further he saith that (u) Ib. tit edit Patriar Proph. sol 282. he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down And he teacheth the (w) Tit. de li. Vet. Nov. Test book of Job to be as it were an argument for a Fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this means the Bible was conserved If this were so the books of the Prophets being not written by themselves but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soon be called in question Are not these errors of Luther fundamental and yet if Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church upon what certain ground can they disprove these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies O godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to return to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the above-mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be dis-canonized to wit all those of which some Ancients have doubted and those which divers Lutherans have of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixth Article doth specifie by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonical but those of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical The Mysterie is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must have contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly received c. I ask By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receive divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it be the greater or less number of Voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevail and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Uncertain Controversie of Fact Whether the number of those who reject or of those others who receive such and such Scriptures be greater Their Faith must alter according to years and days When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claim Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius or Calvin grew to some equal or greater number than that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church And in the latter part speaking again of the New Testament they give a far different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical This I say is a rule much different from the former of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received pass for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Above all we desire to know Upon what infallible ground in some Books they agree with us against Luther and divers principal Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselves it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err because of contradictory Propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture have no necessary or natural connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferr that they proceeed from God or be confirmed by divine Authority as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of natural reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphear of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the self same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for example the mysterie of the blessed Trinity c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted Word of God otherwise
some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sibyls Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonical Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internal light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonical Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it self alone but by some other extrinsecal Authority 11. And here we appeal to any man of judgement whether it be not a vain brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it self or as D. Potter words it by (y) Pag. 141. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness without any other help than light it self and as our ear knows a voice by the voice it self alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the external Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporal light may be discerned by it self alone as being evident proportionate and connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine Faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1. non-apparentium an argument or conviction of things not-evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture do not manifest it self by it self alone but must requâ—re some other means for applying it to our understanding Nevertheless their own similitudes and instances make against themselves For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sun Moon Fire Candle c. and should be brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know Whether it were produced by the Sun or Moon c Or if one hear a voice and had never known the Speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unless they first know the Writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I hear unless I first both know the person who speaks and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceived For there may be Voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceived by them as birds were by the Grapes of that skilful Painter Now since Protestants affirm knowledge concerning God as our supernatural end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discern that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or voice proceeds unless first they know the person who speaketh or writeth Nay I say more by Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirm any thing but only to set down or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himself understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is clear that the Writer speaks or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot hear or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirm that by Scripture it self they can see that the Writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonical Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the holy Ghost 12. But let us be liberal and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporal light by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet the Similitude proves against themselves For light is not visible except to such as have eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith or as D. Potter above cited saith to all that have (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discern the shining beams thereof that is to the believer as immediately after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith which can be no other than the Church 13. Others affirm that they know Canonical Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Books But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answer our Argument is strengthned because divers Apocryphal writings have appeared under the Titles and Names of sacred Authors as the Gospel of Thomas mentioned by (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. S. Augustine the Gospel of Peter which the Nazaraei did use as (c) L. 2. haeretic fab Theodoret witnesseth with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop was for some time deceived as may be read in (d) Li. 6. c. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) Lib. 6. c. 11. Peter The like may be said of the Gospels of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specified by Pope (f) Dist Can. Sancta Romana Gelasius Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Books as also both we and they hold for Apocryphal the third and fourth Books which go under the name of Esdras and yet both of us receive his first and second book Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what Books be Canonical which (h) In his defence art 4. pag. 31. D. Covel acknowledgeth in these words It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the Word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Mark ' s Gospel who was not an
Apostle and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Luke ' s Gospel who saw not Christ and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus who saw him 14. Another Answer or rather Objection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians So i Pag. 234. D. Potter But this is either a plain begging of the question or manifestly untrue and is directly against their own Doctrin and Practice If they mean that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most known in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other principles they suppose that which is in question Whether there be not some Principle for example the Church whereby we may come to the knowledg of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most known in Christianity then Scripture may be proved For Principles that are not the first nor known of themselves may and ought to be proved before we can yield assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their own Doctrine and practice in as much as they are wont to affirm that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical and may be interpreted by another And since every Scripture is a Principle sufficient upon which to ground divine Faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proved by another Yea this their Answer upon due ponderation fals out to prove what we affirm For since all Principles cannot be proved we must that our labour may not be endless come at length to rest in some Principle which may not require any other proof Such is Tradition which involves an evidence of fact and from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of God's Church k In Synopsi S. Athanasius saith that only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the holy and Catholique Church have so determined The third Councel of l Can. 47. Carthage having set down the Books of holy Scripture gives the reason because We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church S. Augustine m Cont. ep Fundam c. 5. speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which book I must give credit if I give credit to the Gospel because the Catholique Church doth alike recommend to me both these Books And in the same place he hath also these words I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholique Church did move me A saying so plain that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Here I n To. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely whether this saying of Augustine seem not over-bold or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him 15. But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonical this will little avail them unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted or what Translations be true Calvin o Instit c. 6. Sect. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yea period can be securely understood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hieroms time invented by the perfidious Jews who either by ignorance might mistake or upon malice force the Text to favour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retains much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists which also proves the Greek for the New Testament not to be void of doubâ—fulness as Calvin p Instit c. 7â— Sect. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greek were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of Faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other Tongues wherein no private man having any promise or assurance of Infallibility Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone will find no certain ground for their faith as accordingly whitaker q Lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. affirmeth Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek do erre often and unavoidably 16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious exact and judicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King James of famous memory hath to this r Tast 1. Sect. 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2 cap. 2. Sect. 10 subd 2. purpose To omit saith he particulars whose recital would be infinite and to touch this point but generally only The Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas Osiander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the Word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of Divinity Fooâ—s Asses Antichrists Deceivers and of Asse-like understanding In so much that when Froschoverus the Zuinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there Luther would not receive the same but sending it back rejected it as the Protestants Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witness The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the holy Ghost The Translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnical As concerning Calvins Translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molinaeus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's Translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the University of Jena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole Book of this matter and saith that to note all his errors in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly
the Jewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in case of moment as all Points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successively upon several occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently known to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide Controversies in Religion That sometime Churches had one Judge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or years as new Canonical Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in God's Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonical Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent Heresies or Infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soul is h De test aniâ— cap. 5. before the letter and speech before Books and sense before style Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or substraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would have brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost than gained by holy Scripture which ought to be farr from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies Infallibility setled in a living Judge is incomparably more useful and fit than if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility of the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milk of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted Fountain If Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in Points Fundamental and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the coming of Scripture was deprived of Infallibility in some Points and not in others He affirmeth that the Jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the Church of Christ of Infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially if we consider that in the Old Testament Laws Ceremonies Rites Punishments Judgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jews than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of Infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue D. Potter i Pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue objects That we might as well inserr that Christians must have one Soveraign Prince over all because the Jews had one chief Judge But the disparity is very clear The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their civil Government of Christian Common-wealths or Kingdoms The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Jewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or k Heb. 13. family to an l Cant. 2. Army to a m 1 Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a n Mat. 12. kingdom c. all which require one Master one General one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fict Unum ovile o Joan. c. 10. joyned Unus Pastor One Sheepsold One Pastour But all distinct Kingdoms or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to Salvation that all have recourse to one Church but for temporal weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporal Prince Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas Kingdoms have their several Laws different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Jews there was one Power and Judge to end debates and resolve difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24. This Discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus p Lib. 5. c. 4. in these words What if the Apostles had not lest Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without letters or lake and diligent keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receive the truth from God's Church seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited in her as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question 25. Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self For either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture or they have not If not then the Scripâ—ure to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith nor a meet Judge of Controversies If they have certain infallible means and so cannot err in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to hear examine and determine all Controversies of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrin they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I ask D. Potter Whether â—his Assertion Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith be a fundamental Point of Faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a Fundamental Point For he will have against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it
35. You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Books of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church you demand What they mean by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical I answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Judge I have told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Judge but not the present Church much less the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but an highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me-thinks you should not deny but may be a sufficient ground of Faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudential Motives 36. But by this Rule the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should think he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confess that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts 37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Job and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamental Heresie He that condemns him for saying the Book of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemns him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The Book of Job may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and have been and Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks that say Some Books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselves Was the Prophesie of Jeremy the less Canonical for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospel and S. Mark the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38. But leaving Luther you return to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us That in the New Testament by the above-mentioned Rule of whose Authority was never doubt in the Church divers Books must be dis-canonized Not so For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonical but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those Books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justifie or excuse such their doubting or denial 39. You observe in the next place That our sixth Article specifying by name all the Books of the Old Testament shuffles over those of the New with this generality All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical And in this you fancy to your self a mysterie of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal y pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England do testifie and even proclaim to the World that by Commonly-received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the pains to look in them and there you shall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest with this Title in the beginning The Books called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what Books only she esteems Apocryphal I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgment Canonical 40. But if by Commonly-received She meant by the Church of Rome then by the same reason must she receive divers Books of the Old Testament which she rejects 41. Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Books of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the Books of the Old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will do as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our Side you must do so when we have no reason 42. The Discourse following is but a vain Declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tried by Most Voices but by the Judgement and Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and Churches 43. But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answer When they say of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universal yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical 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 prevail against the contrary suffrages 44. But if to be commonly received passe for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you do so it is out of Principles which no man grant for who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference
between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the Rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand Upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand Upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say Your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand again some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no wise man denies it But then this Authority is that of Universal Tradition not of Your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of S. Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church sayes is true That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main Pillar of my faith and for want of it I fear should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragragh I am as willing it should be true as you are to have it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understanding's assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the Understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the Bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of Seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposeth the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it self is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the Understanding to assent the Understanding that is the eye and object on which it workes must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moves and the Underis moved which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already To what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed How were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect built a house that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants
by the President of it the Cardinal S. Cruce And yet he hath written that the Councel in this Decree meant to pronounce this Translation free not simply from all Error but only from such Errors out of which any opinion pernitions to faith and manners might be collected This And radius in his defence of that Councel reports of Vega and assents to it himself Driedo in his Book of the Translation of holy Scripture hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose The See Apostolike hath approved or accepted Hierom 's Edition not as so wholly consonant to the Original and so entire and pure and restored in all things that it may not be lawful for any man either by comparing it with the Fountain to examine it or in some places to doubt Whether or no Hierom did understand the true sense of the Scripture but only as an Edition to be preferred before all others then extant and no where deviating from the Truth in the rules of faith and good life Mariana even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words â—â—o Eâ—â—t vulg c. 21. p. 99. The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councel of Trent a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copie And again We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek were by no means rejected by the Trent-Fathers And that the Latine Edition is indeed approved yet not so as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly some more properly whereof it were easie to produce innumerable examples And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then General of the Society who was a great part of that Councel present at all the Actions of it and of very great authority in it 77. To this so great authority he adds a reason of his opinion which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority If the Councel saith he had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects and to make it of equal authority and credit with the Fountains certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the Errors of the Interpreter which certainly they did not 78. Lastly Bellarmine himself though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition yet he acknowledges that the â—ase may and does oft-times so fall out Bâ—ll de verâ—e Dâ—â—d 2. c. 12. p. 120. that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition but only by recourse unto the Originals and dependance upon them 79. From all which it may evidently be collected that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition yet the matter is not so certain and so resolved but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand and very doubtful sometimes whether your Vulgar Translation be true and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translation and sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation nor consonant to the Original as it was at first delivered And what then can be alledged but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred and inforced upon you that not only in your Lay-men but your Clergy-men and Scholars Faith and Truth and Salvation and All depends upon fallible and uncertain grounds And thus by ten several retortions of this one Argument I have endeavoured to shew you How ill you have complyed with your own advice which was to take heed of urging Arguments that might be returned upon you I should now by a direct Answer shew that it presseth not us at all but I have in passing done it already in the end of the second retortion of this Argument and thither I refer the Reader 80. Whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures to fly to your Church for it I desire to know if they should follow your advice how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance which hath been confessedly so negligent as to suffer many whole Books of Scripture to be utterly lost Again in those that remain confessedly so negligent as to suffer the Originals of these that remain to be corrupted And lastly so careless of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them without keeping any one perfect Copy which might have been as the Standard and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by So that which was the true reading and which the false it was utterly undiscernable but only by comparing them with the Originals which also she pretends to be corrupted 81. But Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length enforced to confess thus much saying If the wordlast longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raign 82. And what if Luther having a Pope in his belly as he was wont to say that most men had and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations pass without examining spake such words in heat of Argument Do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches Will you oblige your self to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors If not Why do you trouble us with what Luther says and what Calvin says Yet this I say not as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose For what if he feared or pretended to fear that the infallibility of Councels being rejected some men would fall into greater Errors than were imposed upon them be the Councels Is this to confess that there is any present visible Church upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them Let the Reader judge But in my opinion to fear a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the less is not to confess that the less is none at all 83. For D. Covel's commending your Translation What is it to the business in hand Or how proves it the perfection of it which is here contested any more than S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation argues the perfection of that or that there was no necessity that S. Hierom should correct it D. Covel commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester and so does D. James and so do I. But I commend it for a good Translation not for a perfect Good may be good and deserve commendations and yet Better may be better And though he says that the then approved Translation of the Church of England is that which cometh nearest the Vulgar yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it So that whereas you infer that the Truth of your Translation
must be the Rule to judge of the goodness of ours this is but a vain flourish For to say of our Translations That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar and yet it is but one man that says so is not to say it is therefore the best because it does so For this may be true by accident and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours For had that been their direction they would not only have made a Translation that should come near to yours but such a one which should exactly agree with it and be a Translation of your Translation 84. Ad 17. § In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of Scripture Which hath been answered already by saying That if you speak of plain places and in such all things necessary are contained we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them neither need they any interpreter If of obscure and difficult places we confess we are uncertain of the sense of many of them But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain For if God's will had been we should have understood him more certainly he would have spoken more plainly And we say besides that as we are uncertain so are You too which he that doubts of let him read your Commentators upon the Bible and observe their various and dissonant interpretations and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction 85. But seeing there are contentions among us we are taught by nature and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Judicial sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to perswade us to seek such a means of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to find it But this we know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authorized thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we do that all sin were abolisht yet we have little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selves with and to perswade others unto an Unity of Charity and mutual Toleration seeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion Neither do we think it fit to argue thus To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God hath appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such Judge of Controversies therefore though it seems to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to have one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best know to Himself not to allow us this convenience 86. D. Field's words which follow I confess are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book and so acknowledged by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receive their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he have in his Preface strained too high in commendation of the Subject he writes of as Writers very often do in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable he might mean all that are or have been in the world and so include even the Primitive Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Judgement we shall rest in if we believe the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and live according to it 87. Ad § 18. That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be received from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who profess themselves very ready to receive all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any society of men nay from any man whatsoever 88. That the Churche's Interpretation of Scripture is alwayes true that is it which you would have said and that in some sense may be also admitted viz. if you speak of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Upon the Tradition of which Church you there told us we were to receive the Scripture and to believe it to be the Word of God For there you teach us That our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proof And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrin to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to believe it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture and we believe it therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us This or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to believe that also this is too transparent Sophistry to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89. If there be any Traditive Interpretation of Scripture produce it and prove it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the Authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receive both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the Authority of Original Tradition yet we receive neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90. First for the Scripture How can we receive them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonical which
we were disobliged from performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice unless it be expressed in the ten Commandements For to omit the precepts of receiving Sacraments which belong to practice or manners and yet are not contained in the Decalogue there are many sins even against the law of nature and light of reason which are not contained in the ten Commandements except only by similitude analogie reduction or some such way For example 〈◊〉 we find not expressed in the Decalogue either divers sins as Gluttony Drunkenness Pride Sloth Covetuousness in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greediness or divers of our chiefe obligations as Obedience to Princes and all Superiours not only Ecclesiastical but also Civil whose laws Luther Melancthon Calvin and some other Protestants do dangerously affirme not to oblige in conscience and yet these men think they know the ten Commandements as likwise divers Protestants defend Usury to be lawful and the many Treatises of Civilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that divers sins against the light of reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten Commandements although when by others diligence they are found unlawful they may be reduced to some of the Commandements and yet not so evidently and particularly but that divers do it in divers manners 12. My third Observation is That our present question being Whether or no the Creed contain so fully all Fundamental Points of Faith that whosoever do not agree in all and every one of those Fundamental Articles cannot have the same substance of Faith nor hope of Salvation if I can produce one or more Points nor contained in the Creed in which if two do not agree both of them cannot expect to be saved I shall have performed as much as I intend and D. Potter must seek out some other Catalogue for Points Fundamental than the Creed Neither is it material to the said purpose whether such Fundamental Points rest only in knowledge and speculation or belief or else be farther referred to work and practice For the habit o◠vertue of Faith which inclineth and enableth us to believe both speculative and practical verities is of one and the self same nature and essence For example by the same Faith whereby I speculatively believe there is a God I likewise believe that he is to be adored served and loved which belong to practice The reason is because the Formal Object or motive for which I yeeld assent to those different sorts of material objects is the same in both to wit the revelation or Word of God Where by the way I note that if the Unity or Distinction and nature of Faith were to be taken from the diversity of things revealed by one faith I should believe speculative verities and by another such as tend to practice which I doubt whether D. Potter himself will admit 13. Hence it followeth that whosoever denyeth any one main practical revealed truth is no lesse an Heretique than if he should deny a Point resting in belief alone So that when D Potter to avoid our argument that all Fundamental Points are not contained in the Creed because in it there is no mention of the Sacraments which yet are Points of so main importance that Protestants make the due administration of them to be necessary and essential to constiture a Church answereth that the Sacraments are to be (p) Pag. 235. reckoned rather among the Agenda of the Church than the Credenda they are rather Divine Rites and Ceremonies than Doctrins he either grants what we affirm or in effect sayes Of two kinds of revealed Truths which are necessary to be believed the Creed contains one sort only ergo it contains all kind of revealed Truths necessary to be believed Our question is not de nomine but re not what be called Points of Faith or of Practice but what Points indeed be necessarily to be believed whether they be termed Agenda or Credenda especially the chiefest part of Christian perfection consisting more in Action than in barren Speculation in good works than bare belief in doing than knowing And there are no less contentions concerning practical than speculative truths as Sacraments obtaining remission of sin Invocation of Saints Prayers for dead Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and many other all which do so much the more import as on them beside right belief doth also depend our practice and the ordering of our life Though D. Potter could therefore give us as he will never be able to do a minute and exact Catalogue of all Truths to be believed that would not make me able enough to know whether or no I have Faith sufficient for Salvation till he also did bring in a particular List of all believed Truths which tend to practice declaring which of them be fundamental which not that so every man might know whether he be not in some Damnable Error for some Article of Faith which farther might give influence into Damnable works 14. These Observations being premised I come to prove that the Creed doth not contain all Points of Faith necessary to be known and believed And to omit that in general it doth not tell us what Points be fundamental or not fundamental which in the way of Protestants is most necessary to be known in particular there is no mention of the greatest evils from which mans calamity proceeded I mean the sin of the Angels of Adam and of Original sin in us nor of the greatest Good from which we expect all good to wit the necessity of Grace for all works tending to piety Nay there is no mention of Angels good or bad The meaning of that most general head Oportet accedentem c. It behoves (q) Heb. 11.6 him that comes to God to believe that He is and is a Remunerator is questioned by the denial of Merit which makes God a Giver but not a Rewarder It is not expressed whether the Article of Remission of sins be understood by Faith alone or else may admit the efficiency of Sacraments There is no mention of Ecclesiastical Apostolical Divine Traditions one way or other or of holy Scriptures in general and much less of every Book in particular nor of the Name Nature Number Effects Matter Forme Minister Intention Necessity of Sacraments and yet the due Administration of Sacraments is with Protestants an essential Note of the Church There is nothing for Baptism of Children nor against Re-baptization There is no mention in favour or against the Sacrifice of the Mass or Power in the Church to institute Rites Holy dayes c. and to inflict Excommunication or other Censures or Priesthood Bishops and the whole Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which are very Fundamental Points of S. Peters Primacie which to Calvin seemeth a fundamental error not of the possibility or impossibility to keep God's Commandements of the procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and Sonne of Purgatory or Prayer for the
Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely relie Procure will you say to know whether he believe all Fundamental Points of Faith For if he do his faith for point of belief is sufficient for Salvation though he err in an hundred things of less moment But how shall I know whether he hold all Fundamental Points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all Fundamental Points Can you say the Creed Yes and so can many damnable Hereticks But why do you ask me this question Because the Creed contains all fundamental Points of Faith Are you sure of that Not sure I hold it very probable (y) Pag. 241. Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of dispaire But what doth the Creed contain all Points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else do further extend to practice No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practice How then shall I know what Points of belief which direct my practice be necessary to Salvation Still you chalk out new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamental Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall find that fundamental Doctrins are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain (z) Pag. 211 213 214. to be Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capital Doctrins which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common Faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest Believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first Principles of the Oracles of God and the form of sound words But how shall I apply these general definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamental as well as the word principal essential grand and capital doctrins c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish Fundamental Articles from Points of less moment You labour to tell us what Fundamental Points be but not which they be and yet unless you do this your Doctrin serves only either to make men dispair or else to have recourse to those whome you call Papists and which give one certain Rule that all Points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with Salvation And seeing your self acknowledges that these men do not err in Points Fundamental I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soul and the avoiding of desperation into which this your Doctrin must cast all them who understand and believe it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I have made are either your own direct Assertions or evident Consequences cleerly deduced from them 20. But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which we have said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such (a) Pag. 234. necessary Doctrins as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not express the Authority of that which it supposes 21. This Answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needless that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needless to express all necessary Points of Faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence inferr from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonical Scripture at all and much less that such Books in particular be Canonical Yea the Creed might have been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the New Testament except the Gospel of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments have while he tels us that The Creed (b) Pag. 234. is an Abstract of such necessary Doctrins as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writtings may well deliver the same Truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unless D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speake the same truth 22. And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needless that the Creed should express Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonical Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrins delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needless to express Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we do not only believe in general that Canonical Scripture is of divine Authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe that such and such particular Books not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonical And lastly D. Potter in this answer grants as much as we desire which is that all Points of Faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed and therefore contain an Addition not an Explanation thereof 23. But how can it be necessary saith D. Potter for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the (c) Pag. 221. Apostles had and the Church of their times I answer You trifle not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgment of some Articles of Faith which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you beg the question by supposing that the Apostles believed no more than is contained in their Creed which every unlearned person knows and believes and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledg than ordinary persons 24. Your
Belief and Obedience the invisible And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrin of Christ the contrary rather is most certain and necessary that by the fore-knowledg of the doctrin of Christ he must be directed to a certain assurance which is the Catholique Church if he mean not to choose at a venture but desire to have certain direction to it This supposition therefore being the hinge whereon your whole Discourse turns is the Minerva of your own Brain and therefore were it but for this have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty in saying as you do That the whole Discourse and Inferences which here you have made are either D. Potters own direct assertions or evident consequences clearly deduced from them Especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning that it is in a manner wholly made made up not of D. Potters assertions but your own fictions obtruded on him 54. To the next Question Cannot General Councils err You pretend he answers They may err damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition To the third Demand Must I consult about my difficulties with every particular person of the Catholick Church You answer for him that which is most false that it seems so by his words The whole militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly err either in the whole faith or any necessary Article of it which is very certain for should it do so it should be the Church no longer But what sense is there that you should collect out of these words that every member of the militant Church must be consulted with By like reason if he had said that all men in the world cannot err If he said that God in his own person or his Angels could not erre in these matters you might have gathered from hence that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt to consult with Angels or with God in his own person or with All men in the world Is it not evident to all sober men that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with besides the understanding of the matter it is absolutely requisite that they may be spoken with And is it not apparently impossible that any man should speak with all the members of the Militant Church Or if he had spoken with them All know that he had done so Nay does not D. Potter say as much in plain terms Nay more do not you take notice that he does so in the very next words before these where you say he affirms that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries unless you will perswade us there is a difference between the Catholique Church and the whole Militant Church For whereas you make him deny this of the Catholique Church united and affirm it of the Militant Church dispersed into particulars The truth is he speaks neither of united nor dispersed but affirms simply as appears to your shame by your own quotations that the Catholique Church cannot be told of private injuries and then that the whole Militant Church cannot erre But then besides that the united Church cannot be consulted and the dispersed may What a wild imagination is it and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him I beseech you Sir to consider seriously how far blind zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion and made you careless of speaking either truth or sense so you speak against D. Potter 55. Again you make him say The Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawful Council may erre damnably and from this you collect It remains then for your necessary instruction you must repair to every particular member of the Universal Church spread over the face of the earth And this is also Pergula pictoris veri nihil omnia ficta The Antecedent false not for the matter of it but that D. Potter says it And the consequence as far from it as Gades from Ganges and as coherent as a rope of Sand. A general Council may err therefore you must travel all the world over and consult with every particular Christian As if there were nothing else to be consulted with Nay as if according to the Doctrin of Protestants for so you must say there were nothing to be consulted with but only a general Council or all the World Have you never heard that Protestants say That men for their direction must consult with Scripture Nay doth not D. Potter say it often in this very Book which you are confuting Nay more in this very page out of which you take this piece of your Cento A General Council may erre damnably are there not these plain words In searches of Truth he means divine Truth God ever directs us to the infallible Rule of Truth the Scripture With what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence and pretend that your whole discourse is either his own direct assertions or evident consequences clearly deduced from them You add that yet he teaches as if he contradicted himself that the promises of God made to the Church for his assistance are not intended to particular persons but only to the Catholick Church which sure agrees very well with any thing said by D. Potter If it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely what is that to him 56. Neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation unless it be such a one as hath such a strong affection to this word Church that he will not go to Heaven unless he hath a Church to lead him thither For what though a Council may err and the whole Church cannot be consulted with yet this is not to send you on the Fool 's Pilgrimage for Faith and bid you go and conferre with every Christian soul man and woman by Sea and by Land close prisoner or at liberty as you dilate the matter But to tell you very briefly that Universal Tradition directs you to the Word of God and the Word of God directs you to Heaven And therefore here is no cause of desperation no cause for you to be so vain and tragical as here you would seem Yet upon Supposal you say of this miraculous pilgrimage for Faith before I have the Faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely And hereunto you frame this Answer for the Doctor Procure to know whether he believe all Fundamental Points of Faith Whereas in all the Doctors Book there is no such Answer to any such Question or any like it Neither do you as your custom is note any Page where it may be found which makes me suspect that sure you have some private licence to use Heretiques as you call them at your pleasure and make them answer any
is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same words as any Rebel that makes Conscience the cloak of his impious disobedience may say with Saint Peter and Saint John We must obey God rather than men But then the question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this question you say just nothing but conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should have said S. Peter and S. John did ill to make such an answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion against the lawful commands of lawful Authority 81. But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions their Reformation of themselves and their division from you falls out to be one and the same thing Just as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenness one of them should turn sober this Reformation of himself and desertion of his companion in this ill custom would be one and the same thing and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all or his society in other things So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions which were common to them with you could not choose but withal forsake you in the practice of these corruptions yet this they might and would have done without breach of Charity towards you and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion confessedly lawful And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at was not a separation from you but a reformation of themselves 82. Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation which yet when you measure it without partiality you will find to be farr short of infinite nor their symbolizing in the general of forsaking your corruptions prove any thing to the contrary or any way advantage your design or make for your purpose For it is not any sign at all much less an evident sign that they had no setled design but only to forsake the Church of Rome for nothing but malice can deny that their intent at least was to reduce Religion to that original purity from which it was fallen The declination from which some conceiving to have begun though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in work and after their departure to have shewed it self more openly Others again believing that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times Others thinking they should do God and Men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fifth Ages Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the Decrees of Councels of the first five Ages certainly it is no great marvail that there was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholique written-written-Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow 83. Ad § 30 31 32. To this effect D. Potter p. 81 82. of his Book speaks thus If a Monastery should reformat it self and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not In this case could it be charged with Schism from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order So in a Society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from it could they be therefore said to separate from the Society He presumes they could not and from hence concludes that neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schism that is separating from the Church and making themselves no members of it if all they did was as indeed it was to reform themselves Which Cases I believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of Reason and that therefore the Argument drawn from them is pressing and unanswerable And it may well be suspected that you were partly of this mind otherwise you would not have so presum'd upon the simplicity of your Reader as pretending to answer it to put another of your own making in place of it and then to answer that 84. This you do § 31 32. of this Chapter in these words I was very glad to find you in a Monastery c. Where I beseech the Reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation First That you have no reason to say That you found D. Potter in a Monastery and as little That you find him inventing wayes how to forsake his vocation and to maintain the lawfulness of Schism from the Church and Apostacy from a Religious Order Certainly the innocent case put by the Doctor of a Monastery reforming it self hath not deserved such grievous accusations Unless Reformation with you be all one with Apostacy and to forsake sin and disorder be to forsake ones Vocation And surely if it be so your vocations are not very lawlful your Religious Orders not very religious Secondly that you quite pervert and change D. Potters cases and instead of the case of a whole Monastery reforming it self when other Monasteries of their Order would not and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their Society when others would not you substitute two others which you think you can better deal with of some particular Monks upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monastical observances going out of their Monastery which Monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantial Vows and all Principal Statutes And of a diseased Reason quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease though in their company there was no danger from his disease it being impossible that should be mortal and out of it no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected Company I appeal now to any indifferent judge whether these cases be the same or neer the same with D. Potters Whether this be fair and ingenuous dealing in stead of his two Instances which plainly shewed it possible in other Societies and consequently in that of the Church to leave the faults of a Society and not leave being of it to foist in two others clean cross to the Doctors purpose of men under colour of faults abandoning the Society wherein they lived I know not what others may think of this dealing but
adhere For you abuse the world and them if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles That these particular Books are the word of God for so I think you mean either to be in it selfe evidently certain or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility evidently credible For they are not so fond as to conceive nor so vain as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would if it were evidently certain nor so ridiculous as to imagine that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture should by chance find a Bible in his owne Language and were able to read it that upon the reading it he would certainly without a miracle believe it to be the word of God which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible What then do they affirm of it Certainly no more than this that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse minde shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation those great moments of reason which may incline him to believe the Divine authority of Scripture and compare them with the leight objections that in prudence can be made against it he shall not chuse but finde sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firm faith and sincere obedience Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speak for all the rest in his Book of the truth of Christian Religion which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it and that your Religion is no foundation of but rather a scandal and an objection against Christianity He then in the last Chapter of his second Book hath these excellent words If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion let such know that as there are variety of things which be true so are there divers wayes of proving or manifesting the truth Thus is there one way in Mathematicks another in Physicks a third in Ethicks and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspicion of untruth otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history and a great part of the Art of Physick together with all dutifulness that ought to be between parents and children for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to believe so that the very belief thereof may be imputed to us for obedience should not so evidently appear as those things which are apprehended by sense and plain demonstration but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith and a perswasion thereof in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate That so the Gospel may be as a touch-stone for triall of mens judgements whether they be sound or unsound For seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken have induced so many honest godly and wise men to approve of this Religion it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilful desires it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honors and set at naught other commodities which thing they know they ought to do if they admit of Christ's doctrin and obey what he hath commanded And this is the rather to be noted of them for that many other historical narrations are approved by them to be true which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority and not by any such strong proofs and perswasions or tokens as do declare the history of Christ to be true 52. And now you see I hope that Protestants neither do need nor protend to any such evidence in the doctrin they believe as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith Let us come now to the last Nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants and that is want of Prudence Touching which point as I have already demonstrated that wisdome is not essential to faith but that a man may truly believe truth though upon insufficient motives So I doubt not but I shall make good that if prudence were necessary to faith we have better title to it than you and that if a wiser then Solomon were here he should have better reason to believe the Religion of Protestants than Papists the Bible rather than the Councel of Trent But let us hear what you can say 53. Ad § 31. You demand then first of all What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth I answer Against God and truth there lies no Prescription and therefore certainly it might be great wisdome to forsake ancient errors for more ancient Truths One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church nay for all the men in the world having wandred from the way of Truth to return unto it or for a part of it nay for one man to do so although all the world besides were madly resolute to do the contrary It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church much more of the Roman which in conceiving her self the whole Visible Church does somwhat like the Frog in the Fable which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world 54. You demand again What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation indued with Succession of Bishops c. usque ad Election or Choice I answer Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation but accused and convicted of Many damnable errors certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them had they still persisted in them after their conviction though perhaps pardonable which is all that is acknowledg'd to such as ignorantly continued in them A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetual Succession of Bishops holding alwaies the same doctrin and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetual possession of all the world whereas the world knowes that a little before Luther's arising your Church was confined to a part of a part of it Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other Churches upon her which yet she supports no more than those crouching Anticks which seem in great buildings to labour under the weight they bear do indeed support the Fabrick For a corrupted and salfe Church may give authority to preach the truth and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions Besides a
necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to do nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation THE CONCLVSION AND thus by God's assistance and the advantage of a good cause I am at length through a passage rather tyring than difficult arriv'd at the end of my undertaken Voyage and have as I suppose made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate Readers what in the beginning I undertook that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your Book wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give me in your Pamphlet entituled A direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my Answer I find that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwayes before my eyes and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compass For first I have not proceeded by a meer destructive way as you call it nor objected such difficulties against your Religion as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerly independent upon the truth of Popery and that on the other side the arguments you urge and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion do manifestly tend if they be closely and consequently followed to the destruction of all Religion and lead men by the hand to Atheism and Impiety whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book but especially in my answer to your Direction to N. N. Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes than mine own to make if it were possible such a discovery and therefore am in good hope that though the musick I have made be but dull and flat and even downright plain-song even your curious and critical ears shall discover no discord in it but on the other side I have charg'd you frequently and very justly with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions and not seldom of the main grounds you build upon and the principal conclusions which you endeavour to maintain which I conceive my self to have made apparent even to the eye c. 2. § 5. c. 3. § 88. c. 4. § 14. and 24. c. 5. § 93. c. 6. § 6 7 12 17. c. 7. § 29. and in many other parts of my Answer And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things but only so farre as he defends Truth neither did D. Potter desire me nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther yet I do not find that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment particularly not concerning the infallibility of God's Church which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentals because if it should erre in fundamentals it were not the Church Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith which I know and believe as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reveal'd it not unto us but our Father which is in heaven But now if it were demanded What defence you can make for deserting Charity Mistaken in the main Question disputed between him and Dr. Potter Whether Protestancy without a particular repentance and dereliction of it destroy Salvation whereof I have convinc'd you I believe your answer would be much like that which Ulysses makes in the Metamorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor that is none at all For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England the Approbation I presume cleers my Book from this imputation And whereas you give me a Caution that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrins which all good Christians believe yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by natural reason I profess sincerely that I do not know nor believe that any ground laid by me in my whole Book is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrin or with any verity revealed in the Word of God though never so improbable or incomprehensible to Natural Reason and if I thought there were I would deal with it as those primitive Converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles For the Epistle of St. James and those other Books which were anciently controverted and are now received by the Church of England as Canonical I am so far from relying upon any Principles which must to my apprehension bring with them the denial of the authority of them that I my self believe them all to be Canonical For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture my Book is so innocent of it that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine Supernatural Infallible Faith and Religion I assure my self that if you were ten times more a Spider than you are you could suck no such poyson from them My heart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the Searcher of all hearts knows that I had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus which I am ready to seal and confirm not with my Arguments only but my Bloud Now these are the Directions which you have been pleas'd to give me whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them or out of a desire to make others think so But howsoever I have not to my understanding swarved from them in any thing which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction I have also provided though this were more than I undertook a just and punctual examination and refutation of your second Part But if you will give your consent I am resolv'd to suppress it and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations First because the discussion of the Controversies intreated of in the first Part if we shall think fit to proceed in it as I for my part shall so long as I have truth to reply will I conceive be sufficient employment for us though we cast off the burden of those many lesser disputes which remain behind in the Second And perhaps we may do God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few â—â—an by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner Secondly because the addition of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary there being no understanding man Papist or Protestant but will confess that for as much as concerns the main question now in agitation about the saveableness of Protestants if the first part of your Book be answered there needs no reply to the Second
as good be of none at all Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this that a great part of your Doctrine especially in the points contested makes apparently for the temporal ends of the Teachers of it which yet I fear is a great scandal to many Beaux Esprits among you Only I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the Differences of Protestants that they have no certainty of any part of their Religion no not of those points wherein they agree Whether you do not that which so Magisterially you direct me not to do that is proceed a destructive way and object arguments against your Adversaries which tend to the overthrow of all Religion And whether as you argue thus Protestants differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing So an Atheist or a Sceptique may not conclude as well Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things therefore they have no certainty in any thing Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously Whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyned with your fore-mentioned perswasion of No Papists no Christians hath brought a great many others as well as himself to Averroes his resolution Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Whether your requiring men upon only probable and prudential Motives to yield a most certain assent unto things in humane reason impossible and telling them as you do too often that they were as good not believe at all as believe with any lower degree of faith be not a likely way to make considering men scorn your Religion and consequently all if they know no other as requiring things contradictory and impossible to be performed Lastly Whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe Scripture but your Churches infallibility joyned with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture be not a fair way to make them that understand themselves believe neither Church nor Scripture 9. Your calumnies against Protestants in generall are set down in these words Chap. 2. § 2. The very doctrine of Protestants if it be followed closely and with coherence to it self must of necessity induce Socinianism This I say confidently and evidently prove by instancing in one error which may well be tearmed the Capital and mother-Heresie from which all other must follow at ease I mean their heresie in affirming That the perpetual visible Church of Christ descended by a never interrupted succession from our Saviour to this day is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as revealed truths For if the infallibility of such a publique Authority be once impeached what remains but that every man is given over to his own wit and discourse And talk not here of Holy Scripture For if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof we are still devolved either upon the private spirit a foolery now exploded out of England which finally leaving every man to his own conceits ends in Socinianism or else upon natural wit and judgement for examining and determining What Scriptures contain true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected And indeed take away the authority of God's Church no man can be assured that any one Book or parcel of Scripture was written by divine inspiration or that all the contents are infallibly true which are the direct errors of Socinians If it were but for this reason alone no man who regards the eternal salvation of his soul would live or dye in Protestancy from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and wayes and must abandon all infused faith and true Religion if he do but understand himself aright In all which discourse the only true word you speak is This I say confidently As for proving evidently that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it 10. You say indeed confidently enough that The deny all of the Churches infallibility is the Mother-Heresie from which all other must follow at ease Which is so far from being a necessary truth as you make it that it is indeed a manifest falshood Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good or so much as probable consequence from the denyal of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies or any one error of the Socinians which are the Heresies here entreated of For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus Neither the Church of Rome nor any other Church is infallible Ergo The doctrine of Arrius Pelagius Eutyches Nestorius Photinus Manichaeus was true Doctrine On the other side it may be truly said and justified by very good and effectual reason that he that affirms with you the Pope's infallibility puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresie and even to Hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his grounds Domine cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue nay which is a horrible but a most certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope to say so Which I say and will maintain howsoever you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real Enemy For that name and no better if we may speak truth without offence I presume He deserves who under pretence of interpreting the Law of Christ which Authority without any word of express warrant he hath taken upon himself doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences and instead of Christ setting up Himself Inasmuch as he that requires that his interpretations of any Law should be obeyed as true and genuine seem they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it as the Bishop of Rome does requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Lawes and he that is firmly prepared in minde to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgement they seem unreasonable is indeed congruously disposed to hold Adultery a venial sin and Fornication no sin whensoever the Pope and his Adherents shall so declare And whatsoever he may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Law-maker both stales and obeyes only the Interpreter As if I should pretend that I should
not be as indeed howsoever it should not be any disadvantage or disparagement to the Cause nor any scandal to weak Christians 28. Your injuries then to me no way deserved by me but by differing in opinion from you wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as I from you are especially three For first upon hearsay and refusing to give me opportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me you charge me with a great number of false and impious Doctrines which I will not name in particular because I will not assist you so far in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation but whosoever teaches or holds them let him be Anathema The sum of them all cast up by your self in your first Chapter is this Nothing ought or can be certainly believed farther than it may be proved by evidence of Natural Reason where I conceive Natural reason is opposed to supernatural Revelation and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema And moreover to clear my self once for all from all imputations of this nature which charge me injuriously with denial of Supernatural Verities I profess sincerely that I believe all those Books of Scripture which the Church of England accounts Canonical to be the Infallible word of God I believe all things evidently contained in them all things evidently or even probably deducible from them I acknowledge all that to be Heresie which by the Act of Parliament primo of Q. Eliz. is declared to be so and only to be so And though in such points which may be held diversly of divers men salvâ Fidei compage I would not take any man's liberty from him and humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me Yet thus much I can say which I hope will satisfie any man of reason that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation either by the Catholique Church of all Ages or by the consent of Fathers measured by Vincentius Lyrinensis his rule or is held necessary either by the Catholique Church of this Age or by the consent of Protestants or even by the Church of England that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I do verily believe and embrace 29. Another great and manifest injury you have done me in charging me to have forsaken your Religion because it conduced not to my temporal ends and suted not with my desires and designs Which certainly is an horrible crime and whereof if you could convince me by just and strong Presumptions I should then acknowledge my self to deserve that Opinion which you would fain induce your Credents unto that I changed not your Religion for any other but for none at all But of this great fault my conscience acquits me and God who only knows the hearts of all men knows that I am innocent Neither doubt I but all they who know me and amongst them many Persons of place and quality will say they have reason in this matter to be my Compurgators And for you though you are very affirmative in your accusation yet you neither do nor can produce any proof or presumption for it but forgetting your self as it is God's will oft times that Slanderers should do have let fall some passages which being well weighed will make considering men apt to believe that you did not believe your self For how is it possible you should believe that I deserted your Religion for ends and against the light of my conscience out of a desire of preferment and yet out of scruple of conscience should refuse which also you impute to me to subscribe the 39. Articles that is refuse to enter at the only common door which herein England leads to preferment Again How incredible is it that you should believe that I forsook the profession of your Religion as not suting with my desires and designs which yet reconciles the enjoying of the pleasures and profits of sin here with the hope of happiness hereafter and proposes as great hope of great temporal advancements to the capable servants of it as any nay more than any Religion in the world and instead of this should choose Socinianism a Doctrine which howsoever erroneous in explicating the Mysteries of Religion and allowing greater liberty of opinion in speculative matters than any other Company of Christians doth or they should do yet certainly which you I am sure will pretend and maintain to explicate the Laws of Christ with more rigor and less indulgence and condescendence to the desires of flesh and blood than your Doctrine doth And besides such a Doctrine by which no man in his right minde can hope for any honour or preferment either in this Church or State or any other All which clearly demonstrates that this foul and false aspersion which you have cast upon me proceeds from no other fountain but a heart abounding with the gall and bitterness of uncharitableness and even blinded with malice towards me or else from a perverse zeal to your superstition which secretly suggests this perswasion to you That for the Catholique cause nothing is unlawful but that you may make use of such indirect and crooked Arts as these to blast my reputation and to possess mens minds with disaffection to my Person lest otherwise peradventure they might with some indifference hear reason from me God I hope which bringeth light out of darkness will turn your counsels to foolishness and give all good men grace to perceive how weak and ruinous that Religion must be which needs supportance from such tricks and devices So I call them because they deserve no better name For what are all these Personal matters which hitherto you have spoke of to the business in hand If it could be proved that Cardinal Bellarmine was indeed a Jew or that Cardinal Perron was an Atheist yet I presume you would not accept of this for an Answer to all their Writings in defence of your Religion Let then my actions and intentions and opinions be what they will yet I hope Truth is nevertheless Truth nor Reason ever the less Reason because I speak it And therefore the Christian Reader knowing that his Salvation or damnation depends upon his impartial and sincere judgement of these things will guard himself I hope from these impostures and regard not the person but the cause and the reasons of it not who speaks but what is spoken Which is all the favour I desire of him as knowing that I am desirous not to perswade him unless it be truth whereunto I perswade him 30. The third and last part of my Accusation was That I answer out of Principles which Protestants themselves will profess to detest which indeed were to the purpose if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premised unto it it is very easie for me out of your own mouth and words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one conclusion is there in the whole
fabrick of my Discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to salvation are evidently contained in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one clearly confutable 31. Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the Argument of your first Chap. that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of Religion such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such are the disputes of Protestants Good men and â—â—â—ers of truth of all Sides may be saved because all necessary things being supposed evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain sign that a Point is not evident than that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgement after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 32. Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 33. Grant this and the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be Fundamental which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be preached to all men Those not Fundamental which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the Beeing of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible Guide either to consign unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the Faith Not for the former end because this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned Nor for the latter because nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap. will presently vanish 34. Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduced from this Principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed unnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in Scripture What imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed 35. Fifthly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opposition to your fifth Chap. will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary and for disturbing the Churche's peace and dividing Unity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismatical 36. Grant this sixthly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Hereticks seeing they believe all things evidently contained in Scripture which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixth Chapter is clearly confuted 37. Grant this lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your Seventh Chapter that no man can shew more charity to himself than by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are supposed to believe and therefore may accordingly practise at least by their Religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 38. So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and thâ—refore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this Principle which is not only the corner-stone or chief Pillar but even the basis and adequate foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firm and unmoveable cannot but be the supporter of my Book and the certain ruine of Yours is so far from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their harmony of Confessions unanimously profess and maintain it And you your self Chap. 6. § 30. plainly confess as much in saying The whole Edifice of the Faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all Points necessary to Salvation 39. And thus your Venom against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two little Impertinencies whereby you would disable me from being a fit Advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England The second because I have set down in writing Motives which sometime induced me to forsake Protestantism and hitherto have not answered them 40. By the former of which Objections it should seem that either you conceive the 39. Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be Why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very gross Mistakes And yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a savable condition I do not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold Contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancy destroys not Salvation For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no Error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much Mistaken 41. Your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former Unless perhaps it be a just exception against a Physitian that himself was sometimes in and recovered himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure or against a Guide in a way that at first before he had experience himself mistook it and afterwards found his error and amended it That noble
visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours and others that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwayes visible for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so And the like may be truly said of very many other particulars Besides it is D. Potter's fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he prove the last of that humour to touch in a word many trivial old Objections which if they be not all answered it will and must serve the turn to make the ignorant sort of men believe and brag as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtilly and purposely omitted and every body knows that some Objection may be very plausibly made in few words the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper than one And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compass of so few lines and with so great confusedness and fraud that it requires much time pains and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appear to every man's eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted all words themselves that are omitted all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to believe that whereas nothing is more necessary than Books for answering of Books yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter meetly upon necessity though I did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances that I must probably have been sure enough so finde them plainly misalledged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much advantage therein But Truth is truth and will ever be able to justifie it self in the midst of all difficulties which may occurr And as for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well Domestical as Forrain I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my self obliged for divers of them to the Author of the Book entituled The Protestant's Apology for the Romane Church who calls himself John Breerly whose care exactness and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Books but the Editions also with the place and time of their Printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to finde what he cites yet suspend your judgement till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his Book though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the Print in which Prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons which must needs occurr to any prudent man 8. And forasmuch as concerns the manner of my Reply I have procured to do it without all bitterness or gall of invective words both for as much as may import either Protestants in general or D. Potter's person in particular unless for example he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I do not know how to express the things and yet therein I can truly affirm that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs profess that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss than moderate But since in the very title of my Reply I profess to maintain Charity I conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildness than if it had appeared in too much zeal And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my self as many and more personal defects than he can heap upon me Truth only and sincerity I so much value and profess as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder 9. In the third and last place I have thought fit to express my self thus If D. Potter or any other resolve to answer my Reply I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation the saving of my unnecessary pains and especially to the greater advantage of truth I wish then that he would be careful to consider wherein the point of every difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoot at Rovers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as conecrns the question between D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to prove that Faith is not resolved into the Authority of the Church as into the formal Object and Motive thereof Or that all Points of Faith are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particular Church or Diocess is not all one with the Universal Church Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may err With many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places It will also be necessary for him not to put certain Doctrines upon us from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself 10. I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfs but to set them down faithfully and entirely for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question because the want sometime of one word may chance to make void or lessen the force of the whole Argument And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat because I find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Rejoynder grow too large but it will be occasion of brevity to him and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not material Nay I
I have already satisfied in my Answers to the Second and the Fourth and in my Reply ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25. Ad § 17. To the seventh Whether error against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Unity of faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answer If you suppose as you seem to do the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinced that it is from God so that the denial of it involves also with it the denial of Gods veracity any such Error destroys both faith and salvation But if the Proposal be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinced but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinced of the Divine Verity of the Doctrin proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods Veracity may well consist with such an Error Yet a fault I confess it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the Proposal be sufficient But then I must tell you that the Proposal of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her Proposals being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26. Ad. § 18. To the Eighth How of disagreeing protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs err against some Truth testified by God I answer The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus far agree 1. That those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted Word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very Truths against which they err and Why an implicite faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicite faith in your Church◠I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endevours to believe the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they perform as I hope many on all Sides do truly and sincerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is sincere obedience Why should they not expect that God will perform his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lie without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one Side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations and unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously formed and fashioned they do embrace several Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damn them for such Errors who are lovers of Him and lovers of Truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness it is to make Man desperate and God a Tyrant But they deny Truths testified by God and therefore shall be damned Yes if they knew them to be thus testified by him and yet would deny them that were to give God the lie and questionless damnable But if you should deny a truth which God had testified but only to a man in the Indies as I said before and this testification you had never heard of or at least had no sufficient reason to believe that God had so testified Would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denial Yet consider I pray a little more attentively the difference between them and you will presently acknowledge the question between them is not at any time or in any thing Whether God says true or no or Whether he says this or no But supposing he says this and says true Whether he means this or no As for example Between Lutherans Calvinists and Zwinglians it is agreed that Christ spake these words This is my Body and that whatsoever he meant in saying so is true But what he meant and how he is be understood that is the question So that though some of them deny a Truth by God intended yet you can with no Reason or Justice accuse them of denying the truth of Gods Testimony unless you can plainly shew that God hath declared and that plainly and clearly what was his meaning in these words I say plainly and clearly For he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously and no where declares himself plainly sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken When therefore you can shew that in this and all other their Controversies God hath interposed his Testimony on one Side or other so that either they do see it and will not or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault might and should see it and do not let all such Errors be as damnable as you please to make them In the mean while if they suffer themselves neither to be betraid into their Errors nor kept in them by any sin of their will if they do their best endevour to free themselves from all Errors and yet fail of it through humane frailty so well am I perswaded of the goodness of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such Errors of all the Protestants in the World that were thus qualified I should not be so much afraid of them all as I should be to ask pardon for them For whereas that which you affright us with of calling Gods Veracity in Question is but a Panick fear a fault that no man thus qualified is or can be guilty of to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary Errors is tacitely to imply that God is angry with us for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reap where he sowed not of being offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do This I say upon a supposition that they do their best endevours to know Gods will and do it which he that denies to be possible knows not what he sayes for he sayes in effect That men cannot do what they can do for to do what a man can do is to do his best
upon those very Books which they entituled Of the contempt of Glory What then shall we say of D. Potter who in the Title and Text of his whole Book doth so tragically charge Want of Charity on all such Romanists as dare affirm that Protestancy destroyeth Salvation while he himself is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against Roman Catholiques For not satisfied with much uncivil language in affirming the Roman Church many (a) Pag. 11. ways to have plaid the Harlot and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from Christ and detestation of Christians in styling her that proud (b) Ibid. and curst Dame of Rome which takes upon her to revel in the House of God in talking of an Idol (c) Pag. 4. Edit 1. to be worshipped at Rome he comes at length to thunder out this fearful sentence against her For that (d) Pag. 20. Mass of Errors saith he in judgement and practice which is proper to her and wherein she differs from us we judge a reconciliation impossible and to us who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions damnable And in another place he saith For us who (e) Pag. 81. are convincted in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those Errors By the acerbity of which Censure he doth not only make himself guilty of that which he judgeth to be a hainous offence in others but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination For if Roman Catholiques be likewise convicted in conscience of the Errors of Protestants they may and must in conformity to the Doctor 's own rule judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable And thus all the Want of Charity so deeply charged on us dissolves it self into this poor wonder Roman Catholiques believe in their conscience that the Religion which they profess is true and the contrary false 2. Nevertheless we earnestly desire and take care that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation Far be it from us by way of insultation to apply it against Protestants otherwise than as they are comprehended under the generality of those who are divided from the only one true Church of Christ our Lord within the Communion whereof he hath confined salvation Neither do we understand why our most dear Countrymen should be offended if the Universality be particularized under the name of Protestants first given (f) Sleidan l. 6. fol. 84. to certain Lutherans who protesting that they would stand out against the Imperial decrees in defence of the Confession exhibited at Ausburge were termed Protestants in regard of such their protesting which Confessio Augustana disclaiming from and being disclaimed by Calvinists and Zwinglians our naming or exemplifying a general doctrine under the particular name of Protestantism ought not in any particular manner to be odious in England 3. Moreover our meaning is not as mis-informed persons may conceive that we give Protestants over to reprobation that we offer no prayers in hope of their salvation that we hold their case desperate God forbid We hope we pray for their Conversion and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires Neither is our Censure immediatly directed to particular persons The Tribunal of particular Judgement is God's alone When any man esteemed a Protestant leaveth to live in this world we do not instantly with precipitation avouch that he is lodged in Hell For we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his Catechist we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors or Contrition retracted his sins in the last moment before his death In such particular cases we wish more apparent signs of salvation but do not give any dogmatical sentence of perdition How grievous sins Disobedience Schism and Heresie are is well known But to discern how far the natural malignity of those great offences might be checked by Ignorance or by some such lessening circumstance is the office rather of Prudence than of Faith 4. Thus we allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares us for whom in the words above mentioned and elsewhere he (g) See P. 39. makes Ignorance the best hope of salvation Much less comfort can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chief Protestantss who teach that for many Ages before Luther Christ had no visible Church upon earth Not these men alone or such as they but even the 39. Articles to which the English Protestant Clergy subscribes censure our belief so deeply that Ignorance can scarce or rather not at all excuse us from damnation Our Doctrine of Transubstantiation is affirmed to be repugnant to the plain words of (h) Art 28. Scripture our Masses to be blasphemous (i) Art 31. Fabies with much more to be seen in the Articles themselves In a certain Confession of the Christian Faith at the end of their books of Psalms collected into Meâ—ter and printed Cum privlegio Regis Regali they call us Idolaters and limmes of Antichrist and having set down a Catalogue of our doctrins they conclude that for them we shall after the General Resurrection be damned to unquestionable fire 5. But yet lest any man should flatter himself with our charitable Mitigations and thereby wax careless in search of the true Church we desire him to read the Conclusion of the Second Part where this matter is more explained 6. And because we cannot determine what Judgement may be esteemed rash or prudent except by weighing the reasons upon which it was grounded we will here under one aspect present a Summary of those Principles from which we infer that Protestancy in it self unrepented destroyes Salvation intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds till by a concatenation of sequels we fall upon the Conclusion for which we are charged with Want of Charity 7. Now this is our gradation of reasons Almighty God having ordained Mankind to a supernatural End of eternal felicity hath in his holy Providence setled competent and convenient Means whereby that end may be attained The universal grand Origen of all such means is the Incarnation and Death of our Blessed Saviour whereby he merited internal grace for us and founded an external visible Church provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary to Salvation From hence it followeth that in this Church among other advantages there must be some effectual means to beget and conserve Faith to maintain Unity to discover and condemn Heresies to appease and reduce Schisms and to determine all Controversies in Religion For without such means the Church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation nor God afford sufficient means to attain that End to which himself ordained Mankind This means to decide Controversies in Faith and Religion whether it
prohibited All which confirmeth your Majesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be warst of all and that in the Marginal notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partial untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalms comprized in our Book of Common-Prayer doth in addition substraction and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the Ignorant that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darkness more than light falshood more than truth And the Ministers of Lincoln-Diocess give their publique testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirm that you could never see a Bible well Translated into English Thus farr the Author of the Protestants Apologie c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Justification by faith alone translateth justified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no less notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Marke and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body this is my Bloud translates This signifies my Body this signifies my Bloud And here let Protestants consider duely of these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true Faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err and no greater evidence of truth than that it is evident some of them embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and All must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poor souls are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false Translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures flye to the alwayes visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farr prevail as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confess thus much saying If the Å¿ Li. cont Zuing. de verit corp Christ in Eucha world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raign On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman-Church is commended even by our Adversaries and D. Covell in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand t In his answer unto M. Joha Burges pag. 94. three hundred years ago and doubteth not to prefer u Ibid. that Translation before othâ—rs In so much that whereas the English-Translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved Translation authorized by the Church of England is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that Translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remains concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they do Hence Mr. Hooker saith We are w In his Preface to his Books of Eccl. Politie Sect. 6.26 right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the woâ—ld to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it self unto some judicial and definiâ—ive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand Doctor Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the Controversies x In his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop of Religion in our timâ—s are grown in number so many and in nature to intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgement 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Books be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the holy Ghost Why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proof out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not y Con. Ep. Fund cap. 5. believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me Do not believe Manicheus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Believe the Catholiques They warn me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manicheus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospel it self If thou say You did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospel buâ— you did not well to believe them discommending Manicheus Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not And do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom
is impossible to know what Books be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chief Point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtless q In his Defence of Mr. Hookers books art 4. p. 31. it is a tolera le opinion in the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not he should have said as none of them do to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himself to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some external living Authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamental Error to say the Scripture alone is not Judge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our belief we use for interpreting of Scripture all the means which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which even by his confession cannot err damnably and may afford us more help than can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against Faith and consequently he cannot affirm that our doctrin in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Judge of Controversies is not a Fundamental Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the universal Church may err in Points Fundamental so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to error in such Points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Judge of Controversies And so the very Principle upon which their whole Faith is grounded remains to them uncertain and on the other side for the self-same season they are not certain but that the Church is Judge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in general deny her this Authority and in particular Controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the questions Whether the Church have Authority to determine Controversies in Faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmative 27. Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Means whereby the revealed truths of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himself which blessed St. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversie about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This r De unit Eccles c. 2◠is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to perform what he should say lest we might seem to gain-say not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us God's Word or Revelation commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation But whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church doth resist that means which infallibly proposeth God's Word or Revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the World before and in Luther's time is easie to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental and in particular teach that the Church may erre in Points not-Fundamental it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter An ANSWER to the SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurp an absolute Lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compass his own design as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and add to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws if he can rule his people by his Laws and his Laws by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all Languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successeful was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd Interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrin she pleased under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this means she might both serve herself of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished she could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the minds of men that unwritten doctrins if proposed by her were to be received with equal reverence to those that were writen and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seemed it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges no farther than you please but your servants and instruments alwayes prest and in readiness to advance your designes and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them and cry Hail Ring of the Jews to pretend a great deal of esteem and respect and reverence to them as here you do But to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and syncere
yours and do me none Nay we may both of us hold our opinion and yet do our selves no harm provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation and that we love truth so well as to be diligent to inform our Conscience constant in following it 21. Eighthly For the deciding of Civil Controversies men may appoint themselves a Judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not alwayes give us those things which we conceive most expedient for our selves 22. Ninthly and Lastly For the ending of Civil Controversies Who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Judges should be appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Judges of our Land are known men known to be Judges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing Who were these Judges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topical congruities Would not any man say such Judges in all likelihood would rather multiply Controversies than end them So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined Who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome to this Office and yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain Consequences He that can believe it let him 23. All these Reasons I hope will convince you that though we have and have great necessity of Judges in Civil and Criminal Causes yet you may not conclude from thence that there is any publique authorized Judge to determine Controversies in Religion nor any necessity there should be any 24. But the Scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye to guard it by means of whose assured Vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure Very true but this is no other than the watchful eye of Divine Providence the goodness whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted but that in them should be always extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternal happiness Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness than to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment and yet to exact of men the Belief of those verities which without their fault or knowledge or possibility of prevention were defaced out of them So that God requiring of men to believe Scripture in its purity ingages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity and you need not fear but he will satisfie his engagement You say We can have no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancy But if we had no other we were in a hard case for Who could then assure us that your Church hath been so vigilant as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration There being various Lections in the ancient Copies of your Bibles What security can your new raised Office of Assurance give us that that reading is true which you now receive and that false which you reject Certainly they that anciently received and made use of those divers Copies were not all guarded by the Churches Vigilancy from having their Scripture altered from the purity of the Original in many places For of different readings it is not in nature impossible that all should be false but more than one cannot possibly be true Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to their salvation and Why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours But then this Vigilancy of your Church what means have we to be ascertained of it First the thing is not evident of it self which is evident because many do not believe it Neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it but only some places of Scripture of whose incorruption more than any other what is it that can secure me If you say the Churches Vigilancy you are in a Circle proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churche's Vigilancy and the Churche's Vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture and again the incorruption of those places by the Churche's Vigilancy If you name any other means then that means which secures me of the Scripture's incorruption in those places will also serve to assure me of the same in other places For my part abstracting from Divine Providence which will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked up or made invisible I know no other means I mean no other natural and rational means to be assured hereof than I have that any other Book is uncorrupted For though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Assurance of that than this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration yet my Assurance of both is of the same kind and condition both Moral Assurances and neither Physical or Mathematical 25. To the next Argument the Reply is obvious That though we do not believe the Books of Scripture to be canonical because they say so For other Books that are not Canonical may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it yet we believe not this upon the Authority of your Church but upon the Credibility of Universal Tradition which is a thing Credible of it self and therefore fit to be rested on whereas the Authority of your Church is not so And therefore your rest thereon is not Rational but meerly voluntary I might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man I meet or upon the chance of a Lottery for it For by this means I only know I might err but by replying on you I know I should err But yet to return you one Suppose for another suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction How could she assure me that I should not be misled by doing so She pretends indeed infallibility herein but how can she assure us that she hath it What by Scripture That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceive in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How can it prove it self to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the life multiplied Demands till we rest in something evident of it self which demonstrates to the world that this Church
is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this Point according to Papists all other Controversies in saith depend 26. To the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. § The sum and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appears by the Confession of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various Reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to be determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27. To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it self For as that general saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tell us That when it is said He hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all Controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it self Just as a Merchant shewing a Ship of his own may say All my substance is in this Ship and yet never intend to deny that his Ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his Ship is in it self Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it self Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is Head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious Sophisters should we infer from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himself Your Negative Conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any Reason to prove it it is evident of it self and I grant it without more ado But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary Reader That therefore they are to be decided by your or any Visible Church is a meer inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his Wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the World but Pamphilus and himself For so you as if there were nothing in the World capable of this Office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a Book be Canonical Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other Book confessedly Canonical yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the Ancient Churches any Book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonical or to be doubted of as Uncertain or rejected as Apocryphal according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question Of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the Learned have the same means to satisfie themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the Language of the Original and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know that certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of of the Translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no real difference as in the Translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the Guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have it is not required that we use any better than the best we have 28. You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answer it would be so if we could be infallibly certain that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it self and seen by its own light or could be reduced unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves do not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofs infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and prudential Motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turn and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confess that this very Rock stands it self at the best but upon a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the real Prescription of this Priviledge but only pleaseth her self with a false imagination and vain presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable Arguments 29. Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this Discourse that These controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determined by the Authority of some present Church is irrational and inconsequent I might well forbear to tire myself with an exact and punctual examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which whether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complain of tergiversation I will run over them and let
nothing that is material and considerable pass without some stricture or animadversion 30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. § 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed That ordinaly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The Question then being by what means we are taught this * Some answer so but he doth not some answer that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that (a) The first outward Motive not the last assurance whereon we rest the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of God's Church For when we know (b) The whole Church that he speaks of seems to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the Authority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason And in saying It seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implies There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof (c) Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intâ—insâ—cal Arguments afford â—t the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing (d) Somewhat bâ—t not much until it be backed and inforced by farther reason it self therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it self hath setled may be proved a truth infallible (e) Observe I pray Our perswasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true Therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God by Arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that Point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent Principle such as all men acknowledg to be true (f) Natural reason thâ—n built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first inducement By this time I hope the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness is no very certain Argument of his fidelity 31. But seeing the belief of Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be proved by Scripture How can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture 32. I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the material objects of our Faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the means of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel the Covenant between God and Man the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the Instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6 Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it and not the Means and instrumental Objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covel and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33. But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James Kemnitius and other Lutherans the second of Peter the second and third of John The Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James of Jude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical 34. So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical or had they not If they had not it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had Why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs
to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly die for it yet indeed are Infidels and believe nothing The Scripture tels us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And Who are you to take upon you to make us believe that we do not believe what we know we do But if I may think verily that I believe the Scripture and yet not believe it how know you that you believe the Roman Church I am as verily and as strongly perswaded that I believe the Scripture as you are that you believe the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Again what more ridiculous and against sense and experience than to affirm That there are not millions amongst you and us that believe upon no other reason than their education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the opinion they have of them The tenderness of the subject and aptness to receive impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own Creed who do indeed lay the foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper than upon the authority of their Father or Master or Parish-Priest Certainly if these have no true faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the holiness of his life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose have no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their faith of the Church upon their opinion of Xaverius Do these remain as very Pagans after their conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their souls and obey in their lives the Gospel of Christ only to be Tantaliz'd and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets faith in them What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not believe what they do believe because they do it upon insufficient motives They choose the Faith imprudently perhaps but yet they do choose it Unless you will have us believe that that which is done is not done because it is not done upon good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one holy man which apparently hath no ends upon me joyn'd with the goodness of the Christian faith might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to imbrace Christianity than any I can have to continue in Paganism And therefore for shame if not for love of Truth you must recant this fancy when you write again and suffer true faith to be many times where your Churches infallibility hath no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we believe not enough and not go about to perswade us we believe nothing for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty sophisms you may haply bring us to make us believe we believe nothing but wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophistical And therefore as he that could not answer Zeno's subtilties against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should give me a hundred Arguments to perswade me because I do not believe Transubstantiation I do not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not unty yet I should cut them in pieces with doing that and knowing that I do so which you pretend I cannot do 50. In the thirteenth Division we have again much ado about nothing A great deal of stir you keep in confuting some that pretend to know Canonical Scripture to be such by the Titles of the Books But these men you do not name which makes me suspect you cannot Yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world for Gusmen de Alfarache hath taught us that The Fools hospital is a large place 51. In the fourteenth § we have very artificial jugling D. Potter had said That the Scripture he desires to be understood of those books wherein all Christians agree is a principle and needs not be proved among Christians His reason was because that needs no farther proof which is believed already Now by this you say he means either that the Scripture is one of these first Principles and most known in all Sciences which cannot be proved which is to suppose it cannot be proved by the Church and that is to suppose the Question Or he means That it is not the most known in Christianity and then it may be proved Where we see plainly That two most different things Most known in all Sciences and Most known in Christianity are captiously confounded As if the Scripture might not be the first and most known Principle in Christianity and yet not the most known in all Sciences Or as if to be a First Principle in Christianity and in all Sciences were all one That Scripture is a Principle among Christians that is so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent Controversie to any Christian but may be taken for granted I think few will deny You your selves are of this a sufficient Testimony for urging against us many texts of Scripture you offer no proof of the truth of them presuming we will not question it Yet this is not to deny that Tradition is a Principle more known than Scripture But to say It is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men 52. But It is repugnant to our practice to hold Scripture a Principle because we are wont to affirm that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical and may be interpreted by another Where the former device is again put in practice For to be known to be Canonical and to be interpreted is not all one That Scripture may be interpreted by Scripture that Protestants grant and Papists do not deny neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion Scripture is the word of God may be among Christians a common Principle But the first That one part of Scripture may prove another part Canonical and need no proof of its own being so for that you have produced divers Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirm it nondum constat 53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius and S. Austine that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Understanding by Church as here you explain your self The credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present
the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so moved to go about this work then I confess you are excused But then I would know Whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councel for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councel of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is Whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himself in Cathedra and fall to writing Expositions upon the Bible for the direction of Christians to the true sense of it If you say He cannot you will make your self ridiculous If he can then I would know Whether he should be infallibly directed in these Expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresisible motion Why does he not go about this noble work presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councel of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently How shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing He assists none but what He himself moves to And whether He did move the Pope to call this Councel is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himself 96. If you say your meaning is only That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question Why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or Why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghost's assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all Errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot do this without taking away their freewill in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their free-will in believing and in professing their belief 97. To the place of S. Austin I answer That not the Authority of the present Church much less of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone moved S. Austin to believe the Gospel but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved and which it self needs no proof and to which you have referred this very Saying of Saint Austin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi c. Chap. 2. § 14. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews That his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to dis-believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Universal and Original Tradition lies against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may do well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of Manichaeus unless you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98. If you say that S. Austin speaks here of the authority of the present Church abstracted from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99. I answer First That it is a vain presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austin speak here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it and its both Personal and Doctrinal succession from the Apostles his Argument will be like a Buskin that will serve any leg It will serve to keep an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and The Church as much as the Papists now do If then you should have come to an ancient Goth or Vandal whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should have moved him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me Do not believe the Homo-ousians Chuse what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Believe the Arrians they warn me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Arrians thou shalt not do well to force me to the faith of the Homo-ousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I believed the Gospel it self If you say You did well to believe them commending the Gospel but you did not well to believe them discommending the Homo-ousians Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethink your selves What you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100. Whereas you ask Whether Protestants do not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austin spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand again Whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many Books for Scripture which are not so and do not bid men to receive any Book which
the Scripture 103. To this I answer As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Judge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Judge otherwise you might make your self Judge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Judge of Controversies If you say Your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with sophistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to infer in the â—nd which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Judge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still run upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Judge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he hath left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say Thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Judge of Controversies that they have the Authority of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking as of * Cont. Parmen l. 5. in Prin. Optatus 104. But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Judge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the Word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both do what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether they be learned or unlearned And my reason hereof is convincing and Demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed For to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other is false that God obliges men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means which is to say that like Pharoah he gives no straw and requires brick that he reaps where he sows not that he gathers where he strews not that he will not be pleased with our utmost endeavours to please him without full and exact and never failing performance that his will is we should do what he knows we cannot do that he will not accept of us according to that which we have but requireth of us what we have not Which Whether it can consist with his goodness with his wisdom and with his word I leave it to honest men to judge If I should send a servant to Paris or Rome or Jerusalem and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way yet notwithstanding meeting often with such places where the road is divided into several wayes whereof every one is as likely to be true and as likely to be false as any other should at length mistake and go out of the way Would not any man say that I were an impotent foolish and unjust Master if I impute that to God which we would take in foul scorn if it were imputed to our selves Certainly I for my part fear I should not love God if I should think so strangely of him 105. Again when you say That unlearned and ignorant men cannot understand Scripture I would desire you to come out of the Clouds and tell us what you mean Whether that they cannot understand all Scripture or that they cannot understand any Scripture or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to heaven If the first I believe the Learned are in the same case If the second Every man's experience will confute you for Who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the Story the Precepts the Promises and the Threats of the Gospel If the third that they may understand something but not enough for their Salvations I ask you first Why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation Why doth Saint Austin say Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia continent quae pertinent ad Fidem Moresque vivendi Why does every one of the four Evangelists intitle their Book The Gospel if any necessary and essential part of the Gospel were left out of it Can we imagine that either they omitted something necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it Or out of negligence did the work they have undertaken by halfs If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work then certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ I mean all the essential and necessary parts of it So that if we had no other Book of Scripture but one of them alone we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation And what one of them hath more than another it is only profitable and not necessary Necessary indeed to be believed because revealed but not therefore revealed because necessary to be believed 106. Neither did they write only for the learned but for all men This being one especial means of the preaching of the Gospel which was commanded to be preached not only to learned men but to all men And therefore unless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose we must conceive that they intended to speak plain even to the capacity of the simplest at least touching all things necessary to be published by them and believed by us 107. And whereas you pretend it is so easie and obvious both for the learned and the ignorant both to know Which is the Church and what are the Decrees of the Church and what is the sense of those Decrees I say this is a vain pretence 108. For first How shall an unlearned man whom you have supposed now ignorant of Scripture how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church You will say perhaps He must examine them by the notes of the Church which are perpetual Visibility Succession Conformity with the Ancient Church c. But how shall he know first that these are the notes of the Church unless by Scripture which you say he understands not You may say perhaps he may be told so But seeing men may deceive and be deceived and their words are no demonstrations How shall he be assured that what they say is true So that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty and cannot know the Church but by such
122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil government that men without warrant from God should usurp a Tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometime against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I do not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say That a man may be a passionate and seditious creature from whence you would have us inferr that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you do make private men infallible Interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can do by their passionate or seditious Interpretations but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge yet we do not deny but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebels and Traitors and Theeves and Murderers 123. Ad § 23. The next § in the beginning argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the world and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and there some certain direction what to believe Therefore there was then an infallible Judge Just as if I should say York is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a Dog is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himself to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church * See Chrysost Hom. 1 in Mat. Isidor Pelus l. 3. ep 106. and also Basil in Ps 28. and then you shall confess that by o her means besides these God did communicate himself unto men and made them receive and understand his laws See also to the same purpose Heb. 1.1 S. Chrysostom and Isidorus Pelusiota conceived He might use other means And Saint Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his works And that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 124. But D. Potter sayes you say In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible 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 Besides it is one thing to say that the living Judge in the Jewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Jews As a man may truely say the Wisemen had an in fallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not do otherwise 125. But either the Church retains still her Infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An Argument me thinks like this Either you have horns or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had horns so say I for ought appears by your reasons the Church never had Infallibility 126. But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Judge of Controversies some Churches had one Judge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Judge and another another especially seeing the Books of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the Doctrin of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospel being contained in every one of the four Gospels as I have proved So that they which had all the Books of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospels wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly inferred by you that with months and years as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 127. Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writâ—ng of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned and avoided unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned and avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie seeing Heresie is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the Faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God that this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinately offend him That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World that it is He by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Ascension or Sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judg of the quick the dead That all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient means to discover and condemn and avoid that Heresie without any need of an infallible guide
So likewise if I had a Controversie about the Truth of Christ with a Jew it would be vainly done of me should I press him with the Authority of the New Testament which he believes not until out of some principles common to us both I had perswaded him that it is the Word of God The New Testament therefore while he remains a Jew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie in as much as that which is doubted of it self is not fit to determine other doubts So likewise if there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may believe a Book S. Austin's to contain nothing but the Truth of God and yet not to have been inspired by God himself against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible because nothing in question can be a proof to it self When therefore we say Scripture is a sufficient means to determine all Controversies we say not this either to Atheists Jews Turks or such Christians if there be any such as believe not Scripture to be the Word of God But among such men only as are already agreed upon this that the Scripture is the Word of God we say All Controversies that arise about Faith are either not at all decidable and consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other or they may be determined by Scripture In a word That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contained in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed And our reason hereof is convincing because nothing can challenge our belief but what hath descended to us from Christ by Original and Universal Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief Now then to come up closer to you and to answer to your Question not as you put it but as you should have put it I say That this Position Scripture alone is the Rule whereby they which believe it to be God's Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith is no fundamental point Though not for your Reasons For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I have done and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this That the Scripture is the Word of God and consequently that this is none of their Controversies To your second That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority We have said already that Necessary Controversies may be and are decided And if they be not ended this is not through defect of the Rule but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended it is not necessary they should be ended For if God did require the ending of them he would have provided some certain means for the ending of them And to your Third I say that Your pretence of using these means is but hypocritical for you use them with prejudice and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these means happily may suggest into you if it any way cross your pre-conceived perswasion of your Churche's Infallibility You give not your selves liberty of judgment in the use of them nor suffer your selves to be led by them to the Truth to which they would lead you would you but be as willing to believe this Consequence Our Church doth oppose Scripture therefore it doth err therefore it is not infallible as you are resolute to believe this The Church is infallible therefore it doth not err and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture though it seem to do so never so plainly 157. You pray but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion but that he would confirm you in your own Youconferr places but it is that you may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrin not that you may judge of them and forsake them if there be reason for it You consult the Originals but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrin or Translation 158. You add not only the Authority but the Infallibility not of God's Church but of the Roman a very corrupt and degenerous part of it whereof D. Potter never confessed that it cannot err damnably And which being a company made up of particular men can afford you no help but the industry learning and wit of private men and that these helps may not help you out of your errour tell you that you must make use of none of all these to discover any error in the Church but only to maintain her impossibility of erring And lastly D. Potter assures himself that your Doctrine and Practices are damnable enough in themselves Only he hopes and spes est rei inceriae nomen he hopes I say that the Truths which you retain especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ will be as an Antidote to you against the errors which you maintain and that your superstruction may burn yet they amongst you qui sequuntur Absalonem in simplicitate cordis may be saved yet so as by fire Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so unless you suppose him infallible and if you do Why do you write against him 159. Notwithstanding though not for these reasons yet for others I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamental Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholely and entirely and live according to it such a man though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the Word of God my opinion is he may be saved and my reason is because he performs the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we believe the matter of the Gospel and not that it is contained in these or these Books So that the Books of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our faith as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrin as requisite to the wel-being of it Irenaeus tells us as M. K. acknowledgeth 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 Therefore 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 Books of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practice of Christianity
Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictions revelations If any (k) Cap. ult v. 18. shall add to these things God will add unto him the plagues which are written in this Book and D. Potter saith to add (l) Pag. 122. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it And therefore to say the Church may add false revelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernitious error excluding Salvation 10. Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may err yet it is nor imputed to her for sin by reason she doth not err upon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve For if the Church be assisted only for Points Fundamental she cannot but know that she may err in Points not Fundamental at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamental to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith wherein she can have no certainty yea which always imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also revealed yet for the matter she for her part doth always expose her self to danger of falshood and error and in fact doth always err in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not Fundamental because she proposeth it as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always uncertain if she in such things may be deceived 12. Besides if the Church may err in Points not Fundamental she may err in proposing some Scripture for Canonical which is not such or else err in nor keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonical For I will suppose that in such Apocryphal Scripture as she delivers there is no Fundamental Error against Faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of Divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a Fundamental Error to apply Divine revelation to any Point not revealed or else must yield that the Church may err in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture and so we cannot be sure whether she hath not been deceived already in Books recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Books of Scripture which were not alwayes known to be Canonical have been afterward received for such but never any on Book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonical was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphal A sign that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as Divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Omission to define Points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the general promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to Points only Fundamental namely that the gates (m) Mat. 16.18 of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Joan. 16.13 shall lead her into all Truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may be that Doctrin and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words and preaching only to Points Fundamental and whatsoever general Texts of Scripture shall be alledged for their infallibility they may be D. Potter's example be explicated and restrained to Points Fundamental By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonical Scripture were indued with infallibility only in setting down Points Fundamental For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the Word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth Fundamental Points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle (o) In his Sermons Serm. 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express Word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamental because as Nature so God is neither defective in (p) Pag. 150. necessaries nor lavish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to Points necessary to Salvation that so God be not accused as defective in (p) Pag. 150. necessaries or lavish insuperfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for ever he saith Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151 152. directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirit 's guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Universal But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be lead into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of Truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many Truths lie unrevealed in the infinite Treasury of God's wisdom wherewith the Church is not acquainted c So then the Truth it self enforceth us to understand by all Truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of Faith all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation Mark what he saith That promise The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the Universal Church but by all Truth is not understood simply all but all appertaining to the substance of Faith and absolutely necessary to Salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being lead into all Truth is to be understood only of all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in Points not Fundamental or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine Truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to Points Fundamental so may he restrain what other Text soever that can be
brought for the universal infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himself How many Truths lie unrevealed in the infinite Treasury of God's wisdom wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verifie such general sayings they must be understood of Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearful consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all Points by her proposed as divine Truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all Truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replyed to this Argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcel of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no Fundamental error yet it is of great importance and Fundamental by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonical the whole Canon is made doubtful and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universal and not confined within compass of Points Fundamental 15. I answer For the thing it self it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcel of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I infer that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could nor believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonical Books or any other Points Fundamental or not Fundamental which thing being most absurd and withal most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot err in any Point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I add that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other Doctrines which they defend For if D. Potter can tell what Points in particular be Fundamental as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he might be sure that whensoever he meets with such Points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it may err in others and not only true but clear because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so clear that all such necessary Truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be clearly deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot err in Points Fundamental that they clearly contain all such Points and that they can tell what Points in particular be such I mean Fundamental it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamental For supposing these Doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all Points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other Points of less moment Neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other Doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christ's promises to his Church are not limited to Points Fundamental 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christ's Catholique Church in some Points it followeth that no true Protestant learned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universal Church in any one Point of Doctrine Not in Points of lesser moment which they call not-Fundamental because they believe that in such Points she may err Not in Fundamental because they must know what Points be Fundamental before they go to learn of her lest otherwise they be rather deluded than instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to Points Fundamental Now if before they address themselves to the Church they must know what Points are Fundamental they learn not of her but will be as sit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadful menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seek to hear to obey the Church S. Austin was of a very disterent mind from Protestants If saith he the (s) Epist 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness And in another place he saith That which (t) Lib. 4. de Bapt. cap. 24. the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath always been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority The sâ—me holy Father teacheth that the custom of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custom of our Mother the (u) Lib. 10. de Geaâ—si ad liter cap. 23. Church saith he in baptizing Infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition And elsewhere Christ (w) Serm. 14. de verbis Apost cap. 18. is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say Infants do not believe I have already said he believes in another who sinned in another It is said he believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbon gave this round Answer Nos ab Augustino (x) See protocol Monach. edit 2. p 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus In this we plainly disagree from Augustin Now if this Doctrine of baptizing Infants be not Fundamental in D. Potter's sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to Points not Fundamental But if on the other side it be a Fundamental Point then according to the same holy Doctor we must relie on the authority of the Church for some Fundamental Point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not re-baptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner We follow (y) Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 34. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of Canonical Scriptures But how consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonical Scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceive us whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question must have recourse to the same
they judge aright and that they proceed according to the Evidence that is given when they condemn a Thief or a murderer to the Gallows A Traveller is not always certain of his way but often mistaken and doth it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that Charing-cross is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your Error here is your not distinguishing between Actual Certainty and Absolute Infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own Science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not Infallible yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their Rule and Square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the Infallibility of her Rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certain of the Truth of some particular Decrees and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true 27. Ad § 12. But if the Church may err in points not fundamental she may err in proposing Scripture and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already The Church may err in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination for example the Roman the Greek or so Yet have we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Universal Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty of Scripture from the Authority of the Church Therefore unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty hereof at all As if a man should say If the Vintage of France miscarry we can have no Wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rational assurance we can have of it than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Books that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be far greater for the degree of it And if the Spirit of God give any man any other Assurance hereof this is not rational and discursive but supernatural and infused And Assurance it may be to himself but no Argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so far from being a proof of 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 likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible than any other and made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their Authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church says so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing That there is an Infallible Church seeing it is not of it self evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture says so in these and these places Hereupon I would ask him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought Infallible when they had the government of all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot do so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28. Now for your Observation that some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received for such But never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal I demand touching the first sort Whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical or not If not seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations How can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were How then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonical Scripture to be lost and others to lose for a long time their being Canonical at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalness unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churche's omission to teach it for some Ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19. And then for the other part of it that never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal Certainly it is a bold Asseveration but extremely false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom the Epistle of St. James and to the Hebrews were they by the Apostles approved for Canonical or no If not With what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrin is Apostolical Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you do so then I shall be bold to ask you what Books you meant in saying before Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received Then for the Book of Macchabees I hope you will say it was defined for Canonical before S. Gregorie's time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it
after this manner Concerning which matter we do not amiss if we produce a testimony out of Books although not Canonical yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Macchabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonical is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctual as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quintus his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant Keeper of Scripture that for 1500. years had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand Was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by Sixtus If different from both then was it questioned and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly Suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonical had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a sign that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premisses Certainly your flying to such poor signs as these are is to me a great sign that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause 3. Ad. § 13. We are told here That the general promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points Fundamental Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in form and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any Age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentals Therefore neither is the Churche's Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and Writing may be limited to Fundamentals as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answer that if by may be as well in the Major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as justly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentals so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may do it de facto but de jure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversie will be at end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churche's absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scripture's For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we have recourse for the discovering and correcting their error Again there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men have the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the foundation shall not fail the building than that the building shall not fall from the foundation And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone and perhaps of Wood yet if it may be possibly they will have a Rock for their Foundation whose stability is a much more indubitable thing than the adherence of the structure to it Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonical Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater then the Churche's which is built upon them Again a dependant Infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certain as that on which it depends But the Infallibility of the Church depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles as the straitness of the thing regulated upon the straitness of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one hath free-will and is subject to passions and error Therefore the Churche's Infallibility is not so certain as that of the Apostles 31. Lastly Quid verba audiam cum facta videam If you be so Infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signs following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therefore it was intirely true and in no part either false or uncertain I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certain divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is as I have already noted unanswerably evident from the Story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstanding our Saviour's express Warrant and Injunction To go and preach to all Nations yet until S. Peter was better informed by a Vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both he and the rest of the Church held it unlawful for them to go or preach the Gospel to any but the Jews 32. And for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as divine Revelations why we should take them to be divine Revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Therefore when S. Paul says in the 1. Epist to the Corinth 7.12 To the rest speak I not the Lord And again Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the
that she must For seeing the Church is a Society of men whereof every one according to the Doctrin of the Romish Church hath freewill in believing it follows that the whole Aggregate hath freewill in believing And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible that of so many whereof all may believe aright not any should do so I answer It is true if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgment But if all as the case is here captivate their understandings to one of them all are as likely to err as that one And he more likely to err than any other because he may err and thinks he cannot and because he conceives the Spirit absolutely promised to that succession of Bishops of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because he seeth him not neither knoweth him Besides let us suppose that neither in this nor in any other place God had promised any more unto them but to lead them into all Truth necessary for their own and other mens salvatition Doth it therefore follow that they were de facto led no farther God indeed is obliged by his Veracity to do all that he hath promised but is there any thing that binds him to do no more May not he be better than his word but you will quarrel at him May not his Bounty exceed his Promise And may not we have certainty enough that oft-times it doth so God at first did not promise to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon any more than what he askt which was wisdom to govern his people and that he gave him But yet I hope you will not deny that we have certainty enough that he gave him something which neither God had promised nor he had asked If you do you contradict God himself For Behold saith God because thou hast asked this thing I have done according to thy word Lo I have given thee a Wise and an Understanding heart so that there was none like thee before thee neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked both riches and honour so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy days God for ought appears never obliged himself by promise to shew S. Paul those Unspeakable mysteries which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him and yet I hope we have certainty enough that he did so God promises to those that seek his Kingdom and the righteousness thereof that all things necessary shall be added unto them and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to do no more and if he give them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meer Necessity So though God had obliged himself by promise to give his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is utterly inconsequent that he gave them no more than by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to do or that we can have no assurance of any farther assistance that he gave them especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured us that he did assist them farther You see by this time that your chain of fearful consequences as you call them is turned to a rope of sand and may easily be avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposals 35. Ad § 14. 15 Doubting of a Book received for Canonical may signifie either doubting whether it be Canonical or supposing it to be Canonical whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then again distinguish of the term Received For it may signifie either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Universal or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not true A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Universal Church of this present time whether it be Canonical or no and yet have just reason to believe and no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonical As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. James the Church Rome in Hieromes time of the Epistle to the Hebrews And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to do so If by Received you mean Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book hath as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such Book and yet not of all because it is possible men may do not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confess he that believes such a Book to be Canonical i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible Supposition believes it 〈◊〉 not to be true if he will do according to reason must doubt of all the rest and believe none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true than because God hath said it nor no other reason to believe the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word he that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to believe nothing that he sayes and therefore if he will do according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he sayes And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Universal and not confined to Points Fundamental 36. And this Reason why we should not refuse to believe any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamental you confess to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Universal infallibility of the Church For say you unless She be infallible in all things we cannot believe her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not infallible in all things must not nor cannot believe you in any thing Nay you your self must not believe your self in any thing because you know that you are not infallible in all things Indeed if you had said We could not rationally believe her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one and the same in all proposals I should have the same reason to believe all that I have to believe one and therefore must either do unreasonably in believing any
of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely If this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under Pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what those Doctrins are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church-proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by Believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know Whether your Churches Infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no and if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of the Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging Proposal Whether men without danger of Damnation may examin such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councel without the Pope's Confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrin not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrin or practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrin or practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the vulgar Bible now authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholike visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endevour to know explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that actually and explicitely disbelieves some Doctrin of the Church not knowing it to be so and actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God hath the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this Declaration afterward If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you have given fair and ingenuous Answers you shall hear farther from me 55. Ad § 20. At the first entrance into this Paragraph From our own Doctrin That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must forsake it in nothing lest we should forsake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsly imposed upon us and as we understand it will do you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentals our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentals for if it should do so it would want the very Essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this priviledge to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty have
who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawful to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Contiliis parte prima saith that he understands not the holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon is saith that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to have wives Hath saith he the holy Ghost nothing to do in Councels but to bind and load his Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary laws I forbear to shew that this very Article I confess one Baptism for the Remission of sins will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselves do not agree How Baptism forgives sins nor what grace it conferrs Only concerning the Unity of Baptism against re-baptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a Point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as (l) Lib. de Haeres in 69. to re-baptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselves to be greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the universal Catholique Church not to make Baptism void even in the very Heretiques themselves In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these Points which do also make against Protestants That to make an Heresie or an Heretique known for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of God's Church That a Proposition may be Heretical though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of reâ—baptization is heretical and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture And that neither the Heresie of re-baptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not contain all Points of Faith necessary to Salvation And so we must conclude that to believe the Creed is not sufficient for Unity of Faith and Spirit in the same Church unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other Points of Faith and in external profession and Communion also whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter according to the saying of S Augustine (m) Aug. ep 48. with us in Baptism and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Unity and bâ—nd of peace and lastly in the Catholique church you are not with us The ANSWER to the FOURTH CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed contains all necessary Points of meer Belief 1. AD § 1 2 3 4 5 6. Concerning the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of Christianity this is D. Potter's Assertion delivered in the 207. p. of his Book The Creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholique Church is esteemed a sufficient Summary or Catalogue of Fundamentals by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2. By Fundamentals he understands not the Fundamental Rules of good life and action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God and therefore virtually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamental Doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essential doctrin of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to do them The assent of our understandings is required to them but no obedience from our wills 3. But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguisheth out of Aquinas Occham and Canus and others into two kinds of the first are those which are the Objects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and God's prime intention are essential parts of the Gospel such as the Teachers in the Church cannot without Mortal sin omit to teach the learners such as are intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and man and not only plainly revealed by God and so certain truths but also commanded to be preacht to all men and to be believed distinctly by all and so necessary truths Of the second sort are Accidental Circumstantial Occasional objects of Faith millions whereof there are in holy Scripture such as are to be believed not for themselves but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these Such as we are not bound to know to be divine Revelations for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof nay believe the contrary such as we are not bound to examine Whether or no they be divine Revelations such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock nor their Flock bound to know and remember no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always but then only when they do see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as divine Revelations 4. I say when they do so and not only when they may do For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any Verity sufficient Revelation on God's part is not sufficient For then seeing all the express Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sin in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historical verity contained in Scripture or to believe the contradiction of it though he knew it not to be there contained For though he did not yet he might have known it it being plainly revealed by God and this revelation being extant in such a Book wherein he might have found it recorded if with diligence he had perused it To make therefore any Points necessary to be believed it is requisite that either we actually know them to be divine Revelations and these though they be not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be believed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being in forced upon us by a necessity of believing this Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith That all Divine Revelations are true which to disbelieve or not to believe is for any Christian not only impious but impossible Or else it is requisite that they be First actually revealed by God Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to be particularly known I mean known to be divine Revelations and distinctly to be believed And of this latter sort of speculative divine Verities D. Potter affirmed that the Apostles Creed was a sufficient summary yet he affirmed it not as his own opinion but as the doctrin of the ancient Fathers and your own Doctors And besides he affirmed it not as absolutely certain but very probable 5. In brief all that he says is this It is very probable that according to the judgment of the Roman Doctors and the Ancient Fathers the Apostles Creed is to be èsteemed a
believed Now all these sorts of Doctrins are impertinent to the present Question For D. Potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a Christian or that all Truths piously credible but not necessary to be believed or that all Truths necessary to be believed upon the supposal of divine Revelation were specified in the Creed For this he affirms only of such speculative divine Verities which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the Doctrins objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potter's Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33. First the Questions touching the conditions to be performed by us to obtain remission of sins the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how far obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead the cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34. Secondly the Question touching Fundamentals is profitable but not fundamental He that believes all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any error in Faith though he believe more or less to be Fundamental than is so That also of the procession of the Holy-Ghost from the Father and the Son of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the New-Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitive Church until I see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35. Thirdly These Doctrins That Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the Word of God that S. Peter had no such Primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith and consequently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or Succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are Truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so but not so necessary that every man and woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other Points are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrins above-mentioned which were never pretended to have place in the Creed There remains one only Point of all that Army you mustered together reducible to none of these heads and that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the denyal of Merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this Point and the Doctrine of merit me-thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold Merit because we hold this Point than that we deny this Point because we deny Merit Besides when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits you know right-well for so they have declared themselves a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well-doing extendeth not is not truly beneficial to God with our Saviour when they have done all which they are commanded they have done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their Doctrin of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himself Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equal unto and well worthy of eternal glory which is prepared for them As for the inconvenience which you so much fear That the denial of Merit makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you fear where no fear is And that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternal glory make God a Rewarder only and not a Giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternal life And that it is most false on the other side that the Doctrin of Protestants makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder In as much as their Doctrin is That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it and so his Gift is also a Reward but withal that whatsoever they do is due unto God before-hand and worth nothing to God worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods Reward is still a Gift 36. Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honor and means of a Cardinal would you not not only in humility but in sincerity have professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creator nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactor sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent Obligations Besides the work you have done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal happiness I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinals cap than a Crown of immortal glory and with that Cardinal to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37. In the next Paragraph you beat the air again and fight manfully with your own shadow The Point you should have spoken to was this That there are some Points of simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Instead hereof you trouble your self in vain to demonstrate That many important Points of Faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your self take particular notice of his granting of it All this pains therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very Point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat near it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more Points of Faith than there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed And that though all of
the former sort are not contained in the Creed yet all of the latter sort may be As for your Distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vain and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so that alwayes hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospel of Christ The Doctrine of your Church may like a Snow-ball increase with rowling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Jesus so his Gospel is yesterday and today and the same for ever 38. Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other Commission than this Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their Commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a Commission at large to teach what she pleaseth and call it the Gospel of Christ let her produce her Letters-patents from heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacriledge in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kinds and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyn men to believe that there are or can be any other Fundamental Articles of the Gospel of Christ then what Christ himself commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39. Ad § 16 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach is only related by D. Potter p. 155. and not applauded though the truth is both the Man deserves as much applause as any man and his saying as much as any saying it being as great and as good a Truth and as necessary for these miserable times as possibly can be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Unity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of Opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Unity in Communion 40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unless that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves What then remains but that the other way must be taken Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high Points of Faith and Obedience wherein they agree than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Communion than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those Articles of Faith wherein all consent A joynt-worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity which Christians owe one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of al Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to heaven For why should men be more rigid then God Why should any error exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternal Salvation Now that Christians do generally agree in all those Points of Doctrin which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Books of the Old New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God And it is so certain that in all these Books all necessary Doctrins are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrin of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew and S. Mark and S. Luke and S. John as you do of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrins how have they complyed with their own design which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospel of Christ and not a part of it Or how have they not deceived us in giving them such Titles By the whole Gospel of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of S. Mark and S. John I believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other profitable things in the larger Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke And that S. Mark 's Gospel wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he says Matthew to the Hebrews in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospel and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholar of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke and the follower of Paul compiled in a Book the Gospel which was preached by him And afterwards John residing in Asia in the City of Ephesus did himself also set forth a Gospel 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended as you know who do now adays that some necessary Doctrins of the Gospel were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospel which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other
relie Do not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And do you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51. You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God because we stand only upon Fundamental Articles which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the Faith no more than the foundation of a house alone can be a house 52. But I hope Sir you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamental Articles we mean all those which are necessary And you your self in the very leaf after this take notice that D. Potter doth so Where to this Question How shall I know in particular which Points be and which be not Fundamental You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. There you shall find that Fundamental Doctrins are such Catholick Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved All which words he used not to tell what Points be Fundamental as you dishonestly impose upon him but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamental May it please you therefore now at last to take notice that by Fundamental we mean 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 Fundamental to Salvation Unless you will you say that more is necessary than that which is necessary 53. Ad § 19. This long discourse so full of un-ingenuous dealing with your adversary perhaps would have done reasonably in a Farce or a Comedy and I doubt not but you have made your self and your courteous Readers good sport with it But if D. Potter or I had been by when you wrote it we should have stopt your carere at the first starting and have put you in mind of these old School-Proverbs Ex falso supposito sequitur quodlibet and Uno absurdo dato sequuntur mille For whereas you suppose first that to a man desirous to save his soul and requiring whose direction he might rely upon the Doctors answer would be Upon the truly Catholick Church I suppose upon better reason because I know his mind that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth but according to Christs command to rely upon the direction of God himself If he should enquire where he should find this direction He would answer him In his Word contained in Scripture If he should enquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the Word of God He would answer him that the doctrin it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it to be the Word of God by doing such works as could not be done but by power from God himself For assurance of the Truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon and that is the consent of Ancient Records and Universal Tradition And that he might not instruct him as partial in this advice he might farther tell him that a Gentleman that would be nameless that has written a Book against him called Charity maintained by Catholiques though in many things he differ from him yet agrees with him in this that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in and which requires no other proof As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Julius Caesar or Cicero that there are such Cities as Rome or Constantinople though he have no other assurance for the one or the other but only the speech of people This tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon and to believe that the Book which we call Scripture was confirmed abundantly by the works of God to be the Word of God Believing it the Word of God he must of necessity believe it true and if he believe it true he must believe it contains all necessary direction to eternal happiness because it affirms it self to do so Nay he might tell him that so far is the whole Book from wanting any necessary direction to his eternal Salvation that one only Author that hath writ but too little Books of it S. Luke by name in the beginning of his Gospel and in the beginning of his Story shews plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary And what they wrote they wrote by Gods direction for the direction of the world not only for the Learned but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of God and to do it therefore you cannot but conceive that writing to all and for all they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all Besides that here he should find that God himself has engaged himself by promise that if he would love him and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his Spirit and be willing to be directed by it he should undoubtedly receive it even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth that is certainly at least into all necessary Truths and suffer him to fal into no pernicious error The sum of his whole direction to him briefly would be this believe the Scripture to be the Word of God use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternal happiness This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case and this is a way so plain that fools unless they will cannot err from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth and being feee from err our but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it and endeavouring to be free from err our is by this way made the only condition of Salvation As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrin of Christ he utterly disclaims it and truly very justly There being no certain way to know that any Company is a true Church but only by their professing the true doctrin of Christ And therefore as it is impossible I should know that such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks or Stoicks unless I first know what was the doctrin of the Peripateticks and Stoicks so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ before I know what is the doctrin of Christ the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church the
thing to any thing 57. Wherein I am yet more confirmed by the Answer you put in his mouth to your next demand How shall I know whether he hold all Fundamental points or no For whereas hereunto D. Potter having given one Answer fully satisfactory to it which is If he truly believe the undoubted Books of Canonical Scripture he cannot but believe all Fundamentals and another which is but something towards a full satisfaction of it That the Creed contains all the Fundamentals of simple Belief you take no notice of the former and pervert the latter and make him say The Creed contains all Fundamentals of Faith Whereas you know and within six or seven lines after this confess that he never pretended it to contain all simply but all of one sort all necessary Points of simple belief Which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable being willing to conclude rather less than more than his reasons require hereupon you take occasion to ask Shall I hazzard my soul on probabilities or even wagers As if whatsoever is but probable though in the highest degree of probability were as likely to be false as true Or because it is but Morally not Mathematically certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable therefore it were an even wager there were none such By this reason seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudential motives which you do but pretend to be very credible it will be an even wager that your Religion is false And by the same reason or rather infinitely greater seeing it is impossible for any man according to the grounds of your Religion to know himself much less another to be a true Pope or a true Priest nay to have a Moral certainty of it because these things are abnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities it will be an even wager nay if we proportion things indifferently a hundred to one that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void and that whensoever you adore the Host you and your Assistants commit Idolatry That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make or any Decree of a Council which he shall confirm Particularly it will be at least any even wager that all the Decrees of the Council of Trent are void because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope If you mislike these Inferences then confess you have injur'd D. Potter in this also that you have confounded and made all one Probabilities and even Wagers Whereas every ordinary Gamester can inform you that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen yet it is not sure but very probable 58. To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller you demand If the Creed contains only points of simple belief how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise D. Potter would have answered you in our Saviours words Search the Scriptures But you have a great mind it seems to be dispairing and therefore having proposed your Question will not suffer him to give you Answer but shut your ears and tell him still he chalks out new paths for desperation 59. In the rest of your interlude I cannot but commend one thing in you that you keep a decorum and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art Servetur ad imum Qualis ab incepto processerat sibi constet One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it from the beginning to the end Your next demand then is Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamental and the Answer I cannot say so Which Answer though it be true D. Potter no where gives it neither hath he occasion but you make it for him to bring in another question and that is How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not Fundamental D. Potter would have answered It is a vain question believe all and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental 60. But what says now his prevaricating Proxy What does he make him say This which follows Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken There you shall find that Fundamental doctrins are such Catholique verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those Grand and Captital Doctrins which make up our Faith that is the Common Faith which is alike pretious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle elsewhere cals The first Principles of the Oracles of God and The form of sound words 61. But in earnest Good Sir doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted make to this question this same sottish answer Or do you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawful Certainly if he doth answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very fool But if he does not as indeed he does not then But I forbear you and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potter's Book and there he shall find that in the former half of these as you call them varyed words and phrases he declared only what he meant by the word Fundamental which was needful to prevent mistakes and cavilling about the meaning of the word which is metaphorical and therefore ambiguous and that the latter half of them are several places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter to shew that his distinction of Fundamental and not Fundamental hath express ground in it Now of these two places very pertinent unto two very good purposes you have exceeding fairly patcht together a most ridiculous Answer to a Question that D. Potter never dreamed of But the words you will say are in D. Potters Book though in divers places and to other purposes Very true And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine are taken out of Virgil yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem Besides in D. Potters book there are these words Dreâ—d Soveraign amongst the many excellent vertues which have made your Majesties person so dear unto God c. And why now may you not say as well that in these he made Answer to your former question what Points of the Creed were and what were not Fundamentals 62. But unlâ—ss this question may be answered his doctrin you say serves only either to make men despair or else to have recourse to these whom we call Rapists It seems a little thing will make you despair if you be so sullen as to do so because men will not trouble themselves to satisfie your curious questions And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it because as
Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man dissented from others in his judgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much less any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but lest them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much less any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You believe the Points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamental or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not have proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only Points which were not fundamental they should have believed that they might have been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such Points and therefore their Doctrins being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not give sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serve us to prove that Luther and his followers ought to have deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) Pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion or of rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and external obedience Nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture and despise the Church so far as to cut off her Communion he may be justly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee have spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schism or Heresie Could they have stronger Motives to oppose the Doctrin of the Church and leave her Communion than evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should have answered and rectified their conscience by your Doctrin that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or Reason yet it was not lawful for any private maâ— to oppose his judgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and external obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree et in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some Points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man to dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who believe the universal infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we have alleadged out of you The will of God is saith he to have (n) In his preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastical Policy Sect. 6. Pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and final decision shall determine yea though it seem in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of Schism And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speak Not unlike to this is your Doctrin delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councel say you many (o) Pag. 132. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptism of Heretiques was ineffectual and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errors therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Heretical especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government to which all wise and peacable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with Schism or Heresie These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her Declarations Doctrins and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schism and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to have been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a Point not Fundamental to the Faith and which according to S. Augustin cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in Points not Fundamental or else that it is Schism to oppose her Declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church of Points not Fundamental though it were untruly supposed that she erred in such Points But by the
of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this Division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any State Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former State when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain 5. Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6. Fifthly That all the Members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mystical body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7. Sixthly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithful people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true Faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8. Seventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some Point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9. Eighthly That all the Members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommmunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a Member of the Church and divers time it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostom and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued Members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shew or pretence of proof The rest is impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I pass to the eighth Section 10. Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacy One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falshood which yet are maintained by more than thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austin c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. inferrs out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Unity to let pass your want of diligence in quoting the 62. Chapter of that Book which hath but 23. in it to pass by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he says not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Unity which only were for your purpose but only in such a special case as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can do them no spiritual hurt to the intent they may not be separated from these who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Unity Which very words do clearly give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Unity with bad men without spiritual hurt i.e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austin's mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same Book where to Parmenian demanding How can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted he answers Very true this is not possible if he be joyned with them that is if he commit any evil with them or favour them which do commit it But if he do neither of these he is not joyned with them And presently after These two things retained will keep such men pure and uncorrupted that is neither doing ill nor approving it And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing Unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye Judges 11. Irenaeus also says not simply which only would do you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justifie a separation from them who will not reform But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousness of a Schism Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seen that what Iraeneus says falls heavy upon the Church of Rome but toucheth Protestants nothing at all For the men he speaks of are such as Propter modicas quaslibet causas for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ such as speak of peace and make war such as strain at gnats and swallow Camels And these saith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justifie because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruel Tyranny both upon the bodies and souls of men Who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed Modicae quaelibet causae On the other side seeing the Bishop of Rome who was contemporary to Irenaeus did as much as in him lay cut off from the Churches unity many great Churches for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter upon a difference Non de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore Not about any Catholique doctrine but only a Ceremony or rather about the time of observing it so Petavius values it which was just all one as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them And seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the world as Eusebius testifies Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic 3.
that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their souls saved And this is all he says and this you confess to be all he says in divers places of your Book which is no more than you your self do and must affirm of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferr from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamental or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should do you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have means to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these means may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27. Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Paul's similitude the head should say to the foot Either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confess that there is no body To which the foot may answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gracious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confess that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greeks Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the visible Church For all this discourse proceeds upon a false and vain supposition and begs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greek c. must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrin might be wrought upon prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to go to yours rather than the Greek Church or any other which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours that I do not understand unless it be for the reason which Aeneus Sylvius gave why more held the Pope above a Council than a Council above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councils gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meer favour that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errours in doctrin and that Protestants had not always such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this If you will leave England you must of necessity go to Rome And yet with this wretched Fallacy have I been sometimes abused my self and known many other poor souls seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not always be held captive under such miserable delusions 28. We see then how unsuccessful you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kind which you build upon D. Potter's own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism 29. But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or four short Remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only answerable but already answered The Memorandums I would commend to him are these 30. 1. That not every separation but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the Sin of Schism 31. 2. That Imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32. 3. That to leave the Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and Obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repel all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33. Ad § 13 14 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applyed to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoyd the Communion of bad men Whereunto one fair answer to let pass many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospel as it is not is impertinently applyed to Luther and Lutherans whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther instead of Donatus in the later part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your self took notice of this exception of disparity between Donatus and Luther 34. Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrin if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you do understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must
if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other and yet thinks he was no Schismatique for doing so and desires to be informed by you whether or no he was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes than a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote City where he had never been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after find his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so far as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himself that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself and his affections to those things which in this world are most pretious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a cerain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weakness in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickedness Neither does he yield his weakness altogether without Apologie seeing his deductions were rational and out of some Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding Ad § 40 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his Book to prove our Separation from you not only lawful but necessary hath these words Although we confess the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errours He means not in the belief of those errours for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that she errs hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errours This therefore he meant not nor could 〈◊〉 mean but that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errours And the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must profess what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawful to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie Again in another you have called them that profess one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errours the belief whereof they had already forsaken what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this Chapter within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable external obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of Faith but of Opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errours of this quality disturb the Churches peace and cast off her Communion Upon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter Sarcasm I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may err in some points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I answer for him No It is not he but you that would have men do so not he who says plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that any Church errs is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her profession and practice of these errours but you who find fault with him and make long discourses against him for thus affirming Not he who can easily wind himself out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denyes it lawful for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of Faith for that he speaks not of matters of Faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he sayes indeed at first It is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment to the publique But he presently explains himself by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so far is he from requiring any sinful dissimulation Provided he do it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches Communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgment to the publique simply which the Doctor finds fault with But the degree only and malice of this Opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farr as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she errs in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious Rites and Ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required That men should dissemble against their Conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deal less to quarrel with him for saying which is all that here he says That men under pain of damnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the reason is alike for all errs in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errours 105. But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat what more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falshoods and impertinencies The first falshood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Unless you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church errs in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet profess what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking
yield a passive obedience to swarve utterly from that which is right If you will draw his words to such a construction as if he had said they must think the sentence of judicial and final decision just and right though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right It is manifest you make him contradict himself and make him say in effect They must think thus though at the same time they think the contrary Neither is there any necessity that he must either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or drive men into dissembling against their conscience seeing nothing hinders but I may obey the sentence of a Judge paying the money he awards me to pay or forgoing the house or land which he hath judged from me and yet withall plainly profess that in my conscience I conceive his judgement erroneous To which purpose they have a saying in France that whosoever is cast in any cause hath liberty for ten daies after to rayl at his Judges 110. This answer to this place the words themselves offered me even as they are alleaged by you But upon perusal of the place in the Author himself I find that here as else-where you and M. Brerely wrong him extreamly For mutilating his words you make him say that absolutely which he there expresly limits to some certain cases In litigious and controverted causes of such a quality saith he the will of God is to have them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final Decision shall determine Observe I pray He saies not absolutely and in all causes this is the will of God But only in litigious causes of the quality of those whereof he there entreats In such matters as have plain Scripture or Reason neither for them nor against them and wherein men are perswaded this or that way Upon their own only probable collection In such cases This perswasion saith he ought to be fully setled in mens hearts that the will of God is that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawful superiours upon uncertain grounds But do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine For the purpose a Question there is Whether a Surplice may be worn in Divine service The Authority of Superiours injoynes this Ceremony and neither Scripture nor Reason plainly forbids it Sempronius notwithstanding is by some inducements which he confesses to be only probable let to this perswasion that the thing is unlawful The quaere is Whether he ought for matter of practice to follow the injunction of authority or his own private and only probable perswasion M. Hooker resolves for the former upon this ground that the certain commands of the Church we live in are to be obeyed in all things not certainly unlawful Which rule is your own and by you extended to the commands of all Superiors in the very next Section before this in these words In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superior nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees And yet if a man should conclude upon you that either you make all Superiors universally infallible or else drive men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience I presume you would not think your self fairly dealt with but alleage that your words are not extended to all cases but limited to cases of uncertainty As little therefore ought you to make this deduction from M. Hooker's words which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty For as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience to Ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases even when plain Texts or reason seems to controle them M. Hooker is as far from making such an Idol of Ecclesiastical Authority as the Puritans whom he writes against I grant saith he that proof derived from the authority of mans judgment is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof And therefore although ten thousand General Councils would set down one and the same definitive Sentence concerning any point of Religion whatsoever yet one demonstrative Reason alleaged or one manifest Testimony cited from the Word of God himself to the contrary could not chuse but over-weigh them all in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible it is that Demonstrative Reason or Divine Testimony should deceive And again Where as it is thought that especially with the Church and those that are called man's authority ought not to prevail It must and doth prevail even with them yea with them especially as far as equity requireth and farther we maintain it not For men to be tyed and led by authority as it were with a kind of captivity of judgment and though there be reason to the contrary not to listen to it but follow like Beasts the first in the Heard this were brutish Again That authority of men should prevail with men either against or above reason is no part of our belief Companies of learned men be they never so great and reverend are to yield unto reason the weight whereof is no whit prejudic'd by the simplicity of his person which doth alleage it but being found to be sound and good the bare opinion of men to the contrary must of necessity stoop give place Thus M Hooker in his 7. Sect. Book 2. which place because it is far distant from that which is alleaged by you the oversight of it might be excusable did you not impute it to D. Potter as a fault that he cites some clauses of some Books without reading the whole But besides in that very Sect. out of which you take this corrupted sentence he hath very pregnant words to the same effect as for the orders establish'd sith equity reason favour that which is in being till orderly judgment of decision be given against it it is but justice to exact of you and perversness in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience Not that I judg it as a thing allowable for men to observe those Laws which in their hearts they are stedfastly perswaded to be against the Law of God But your perswasion in this case ye are all bound for the time to suspend and in otherwise doing ye offend against God by troubling his Church without just and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Laws Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstrative is such as being proposed to any man and understood the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the Conscience and setteth it at full liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proof that they are not good is must give place This plain declaration of
without which there can be no hope of Salvation 30 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must de because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth lose all Divine saith is a very true doctrin delivered by Catholique Divines with so general a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelical Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 23 q. â— aâ—â— 3. in corp he who denieth one Article of saith may retain saith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumento sed contra because As deadly sin is opposite to charity so to deny one Article of saith is opposite to saith But charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin Therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal Motive and Object thereof which Motive being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remain But the formal object of saith is the supreme Truth as it is manifesied in Scriptures and in the doctrin of the Church which proceed from the same supreme Verity Whosoever therefore doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of faith but believes those things which belong to faith by some other means than by faith as if one should remember some conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is clear that he hath not certain Knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yield his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not he doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is clear that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of saith is not ready to follow the doctrin of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not faith but a kind of Opinion or his own Will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth believe (q) Ad. 2. all the Articles of faith for one and the self same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrin of the Church and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive is totally deprived of saith From this true doctrin we are to infeâ—r that to retain or want the substance oâ— faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against God's divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs eâ—r and that they have no certain rule to know why rather one than another it manifestly follows that none of them have any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confess that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith because as we have seen out of S. Thomas every such error destroys the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not err in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility They want the second Condition of Faith Obscurity 31 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants have Certainly they want Obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or noâ— necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonical Scriptures is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now thâ—se Principles being once supposed it clearly followeth that what Protestants believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true But it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example The Trinity Incarnation Original sin c. are contained in these Books Thereâ—ore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by natural discourse but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace as you speak For supernatural evidence no less yea rather more draws and excludes obscurity than natural evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to caprivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own Their faith wants Prudence 32 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hâ—th been said What wisdom was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Universality of Time and Place A Church which if it be not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetual Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Unity or means to procure it a Church which at Luther's first re-revolt had no larger extent than where his body was a Church without Universality of Place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth a Church void of Succession of Persons or Doctrin What wisdom was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the Visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdom is it to receive from Us a Church Ordination Scriptures
God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knows signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should do because that the affairs of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus sayes not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the Adjacent Churches for so he expounds himself in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithful round about should resort With much more reason therefore we return the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the Roman how could he and all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinal Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily than truly that all Cardinal Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two hours Had Cardinal Perron wrote his Book in two hours sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a Consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actual practice which Proceeding there he justly condemns of evident injustice His words are * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end For who knows not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose Illation there is always some Paralogism hid against the express words and the lively and actual practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that it may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Judges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imployed against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectual than forrain and for his omitting to press him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent-Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he parallels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himself and others not Bishops of Rome Both they saith he speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and we also among our selves retain it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to do so l If the Pope's proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why do you account them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councels did no way shew the Pope's proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent and not as a matrer of faith or necessity as it is evident out of * In ep ad Episcopos in Africa Where he clearly shews that this question was not a question was not a question of faith by saying The Council of Nice was celebrated by occasion of the Arrian Heresie and the difference about Easter In so much as they in Syria and Cilicia and Mesopotamia did differ herein from us and kept this Feast on the same day with the Jews But thanks be to God an agreement was made as concerning the Faith so also concerning this holy Feast Athanasius and consequently they rather declare Victor's proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seems then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himself the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the high Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commands us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay-men in one kind to use the Latin Service c. we may very fitly say to him It is better to obey God than men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning me-thinks there should be some difference and Polycrates says no more but he was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinal is fain to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is clearly inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods Commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councel of Nice embrace the Censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinal neither doth pretend nor can produce any proof any way comparable to the fore-alledged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though perventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austin and to the first place out of him where he seems to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said Upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austin himself was not but retracts it as uncertain and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly What he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he says it elsewhere of all the Successions in all other
true doctrin this Position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your self excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vain doctrin of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have nor ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truths about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of courtesie we may suppose this doctrin true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundless fancie and that this very weak and inartificial argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleadge for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charitie is quite exstirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon Doctor Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it begges without all proof or colour of proof the main Question between us That the infallibilitie of your Church is either the formal motive or rule or a necessarie condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large consutation of this vain fancie out of one of the most rational and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Essius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps some one there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a general readiness to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some Doctrin of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches Doctrin do yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easie but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholesome Doctrin the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they do not erre first experience seems to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints nevertheless firmly hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Son of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist Moreover the same is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christ's passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection John 20. Whereupon S. Austin also in his preface upon the 96 Psalme saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternal life and such like other Articles Besides the Jewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Add hereunto that neither Jews nor Heretiques seem to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels it being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts chap. 20. Believest thou the Propheis I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Jews and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austine seems to teach in his book De Unico Baptismo contra Petilianum c. 3. in these words When a Jew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him God's good things but his own ill That he believes One God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternal life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subjoyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26 Chapter and in his third Book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formal object of faith seems to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrin as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kind of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the rule aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth Saint Thom. 2.2 q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Durand dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Article in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seem to choose
as on the other side I shall willingly grant if I have not answered the First I cannot answer a great part of the Second Thirdly because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary but in effect by your self confess'd to be so For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book So that in replying to your Second Part I shall do little else but pursue shadows Fourthly because your Second Part setting aside Repetitions and References is in a manner made up of Disputes about particular matters which you are very importunate to have forborn as suspecting at least pretending to suspect that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader 's eyes and distract his mind that he might not see the clearness of the reasons brought in defence of the General Doctrin delivered in Charity Mistaken All which you are likely enough if there be occasion to say again to me and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keep my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd and to deal with you upon no other arguments but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principal strength and as it were your Sampson's lock to lye wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you as I verily hope by Gods help I shall do it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds For these reasons although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part and therein have made it sufficiently evident That for shifting evasions from D. Potter's arguments for impertinent cavills and frivolous exceptions and injurious calumnies against him for his misalleadging of Authors For proceeding upon false and ungrounded principles for making inconsequent and sophistical deductions and in a word for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the first Yet notwithstanding all this advantage I am resolv'd if you will give me leave either wholly to suppress it or at least to deferre the publication of it untill I see what exceptions upon a twelve-months examination for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands you can take at this which is now published that so if my grounds be discovered false I may give over building on them or if it shall be thought fit build on more securely when it shall appear that nothing material and of moment is or can be objected against them This I say upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient and not repent of the motion which your self has made of reducing the Controversie between us to this short Issue But in case your minde be altered upon the least intimation you shall give me that you do but desire to have it out your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed Only that my Answer may be compleat and that I may have all my work together and not be troubled my self nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book which may any way import and now at least to take notice of some as it seems to me not unconsiderable passages of it which between your first and second Part as it were between two stools have been suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground and not been vouchsaf'd any answer at all For after this neglectful fashion you have passed by in silence First his discourse wherein he proves briefly but very effectually that Protestants may be sav'd and that the Roman Church especially the Jesuits are very uncharitable S. 1. p. 6 7 8 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies That the ancient Fathers by the Roman understood alwayes a particular and never the Catholique Church to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius Ambrose Innocentius Celestine Nicolaus S. 1. p. 10. Whereunto you say nothing neither do you infringe his Observation with any one Instance to the contrary Thirdly the greatest and most substantial part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken built upon Deut. 17. Numb 16. Mat. 28.20 Mat. 18.17 and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture quoted in the margent of his book p. 25. to prove that the Judges of the Synagogue whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours and therefore must be more credible then yours are vainly pretended to have been infallible but as they were oblig'd to judge according to the Law so were obnoxious to deviations from it S. 2. p. 23 24 25 26 27. Fourthly his discourse wherein he shewes the difference between the Prayers for the dead used by the Ancients and those now in use in the Roman Church Fifthly the Authority of three Ancient and above twenty modern Doctors of your own Church alleadg'd by him to shew that in their opinion even Pagans and therefore much more erring Christians if their lives were morally honest by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved S. 2. p. 45. Sixthly a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actual and external Communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion S. 2. p. 46 47 48 49. Seventhly his discourse concerning the Churches latitude which hath in it a clear determination of the main Controversie against you For therein he proves plainly that all appertain to the Church who believe that Jesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrin in mind and will which he irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in terms S. 4. p. 114 115 116 117. Eighthly that wherein he shews by many pertinent examples that grosse error and true Faith may be lodged together in the same mind And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions S. 4 p. 112. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissentions of the Roman-Church which he shews against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to be no less than ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuit of them to be exceedingly uncharitable S. 6. p. 188 189 190 191 193 194 195 196 197. Tenthly his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church which he proves very consonant to the Doctrin of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently
repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201 202 203 204 205. Lastly his discourse wherein he shews that it is unlawful for the Church of after Ages to add any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby he proves that in the judgement of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrin of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223 228 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reason best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospel did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them lest otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plain confession that you can say nothing FINIS THE Apostolical Institution OF EPISCOPACY DEMONSTRATED BY WILL. CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the UNIVERSITY of OXFORD NOSCE TE IPSVM NE QUID NIMIS LONDON Printed by E. Cotes dwelling in Aldersgate-street Anno Dom. M.DC.LXIV THE Apostolical Institution OF EPISCOPACY DEMONSTRATED SECT I. IF we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals and consider only what is essential and necessary to it we shall finde in it no more but this An appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess and furnishing him with authority not absolute or arbitrary but regulated and bounded by Laws and moderated by joyning to him a convenient number of assistants to the intent that all the Churches under him may be provided of good and able Pastors and that both of Pastors and people conformity to Laws and performance of their duties may be required under penalties not left to discretion but by Law appointed SECT II. To this kind of Government I am not by any particular interest so devoted as to think it ought to be maintained either in opposition to Apostolick Institution or to the much desired reformation of mens lives and restauration of Primitive discipline or to any Law or Precept of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end for Obedience to our Saviour is the end for which Church-Government is appointed But if it may be demonstrated or made much more probable than the contrary as I verily think it may I. That it is not repugnant to the government setled in and for the Church by the Apostles II. That it is as complyable with the Reformation of any evill which we desire to reform either in Church or State or the introduction of any good which we desire to introduce as any other kind of Government And III. That there is no Law no Record of our Saviour against it Then I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable Motion if we humbly desire those that are in Authority especially the High Court of Parliament That it may not be sacrificed to Clamour or over-born by Violence and though which God forbid the greater part of the Multitude should cry Crucifie Crucifie yet our Governours would be so full of Justice and Counage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand concerning Episcopacy it self Quid mali fecit SECT III. I shall speak at this time only of the first of these three points That Episcopacy is not repugnant to the Government setled in the Church for perpetuity by the Apostles Whereof I conceive this which follows is as clear a Demonstration as any thing of this nature is capable of That this Government was received universally in the Church either in the Apostles time or presently after is so evident and unquestionable that the most learned adversaries of this Government do themselves confess it SECT IV. Petrus Molinaeus in his Book De munere pastorali purposely written in defence of the Presbyterial-government acknowledgeth That presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained That in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have pre-eminence over his Colleagues to avoid confusion which oft times ariseth out of equality And truly this form of Government all Churches every where received SECT V. Theodorus Beza in his Tract De triplici Episcopatûs genere confesseth in effect the same thing For having distinguished Episcopacy into three kinds Divine Humane and Satanical and attributing to the second which he calls Humane but we maintain and conceive to be Apostolical not only a priority of Order but a superiority of Power and Authority over other Presbyters bounded yet by Laws and Canons provided against Tyranny he clearly professeth that of this kind of Episcopacy is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of Bishops or Presidents as Justin Martyr calls them in Ignatius and other more ancient Writers SECT VI. Certainly from * To whom two others also from Geneva may be added Daniel Chamierus in Panstratia tom 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. Sect. 24. and Nicol. Vedelius Exereitat 3. in epist Ignatii ad Philadelph cap. 14. Exercit. 8. in Epist ad Mariam cap. 3. which is fully also demonstrated in D. Hammond's Dissertations against Blondel which never were answered and never will by the testimonies of those who wrote in the very next Age after the Apostles these two great Defenders of the Presbytery we should never have had this free acknowledgement so prejudicial to their own pretence and so advantagious to their adversaries purpose had not the evidence of clear and undeniable truth enforced them to it It will not therefore be necessary to spend any time in confuting that uningenuous assertion of the anonymous Author of the Catalogue of Testimonies for the equality of Bishops and Presbyters who affirms That their disparity began long after the Apostles times But we may safely take for granted that which these two learned Adversaries have confessed and see whether upon this foundation laid by them we may not by unanswerable reason raise this superstructure That seeing Episcopal Government is confessedly so Ancient and so Catholique it cannot with reason be denyed to be Apostolique SECT VII For so great a change as between Presbyterial Government and Episcopal could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time Had Episcopal Government been an aberration from or a corruption of the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles it had been very strange that it should have been received inany one Church so suddainly or that it should have prevailed in all for many Ages after Variâsse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod
file there follow adversaries of better fashion there is Life and Death and Angels and Principalities and Powers who are those In truth I know not but be they who they will they can do us no harm No nor things present nor things to come nor heighth nor depth These are adversaries we should scarce have dream'd of And to make all sure in a word There is no other creature shall ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 63. Yet for all S. Paul's exactness there remains one enemy behind and that is a sore one of prime note and truly I wonder how the Apostle could miss him And that is Sin I would to God S. Paul had taken notice of him For this one enemy is able to do us more harm than all the rest put together nay but for sin all the rest almost were our very good friends Had we best supply S. Paul's incogitancy and even adventure to put him in the Catalogue too Well let them that have a mind to it do it Truly I dare not And but that I know Martin Luther was a bold-spirited man I should wonder how he durst so confidently have adventured upon it In his Book entituled Captivitatis Babylonicae cap. de Baptismo near the beginning he hath these words Vides quam dives sit homo Christianus sive Baptizatus qui etiam volens non potest perdere suam salutem quantiscunque peccatis nisi nolit credere I will not translate them to you and I would they had never been Englished for by that means it may be some of our loudest preachers would have wanted one point of comfortable false doctrine wherewith they are wont to pleasure their friends and benefactors Only let us do thus much for S. Paul's credit to believe it was not meerly inconsideration in him to leave out Sin in this catalogue that there was some ground of Reason for it For though it may come to pass by the mercy and goodness of God That even Sin it self shall not pluck us out of his hand yet it would be something a strange preposterous Doctrine for a Preacher of the New Covenant to proclaim that we shall undoubtedly obtain the promises of the Covenant though we never so much break the Conditions 64. I do confess my self very guilty and am sorry that I have thus long exercised and wearied your patience And yet for all that have not perform'd that task which I fully resolv'd upon when I adventured upon this subject and that was to spend this time in raising your devotions to the contemplation of the glorious mercies of God expressed to us in Christs Resurrection and exaltation But because other thoughts have carried me away even against my will almost all this while I shall further take leave to wrong and injure your patience with proposing one consideration more which ought by no means to be omitted 65. And that is to take notice of the Person to whom we have been beholding for these unspeakable mercies and that is Christ Christ alone none else mentioned or thought upon If Bellarmine had been to advise S. Paul if he had been privy to the writing of this Epistle it is likely he would not have taken it ill to have had Christs name in the matter of our Salvation But he would not have endured the Apostles utter silence of all helps and aids besides yea though himself acknowlegeth it to be the safest course to put our whole confidence only in the mercy of God yet quia magis honorificum est habere aliquid ex merito because it concerns our credit to put in a little for merit and desert on our side He would not have us so to disparage our selves as to make salvation a meer Alms proceeding meerly out of Courtesie 66. Nay but Oh thou man What art thou that answerest against God What art thou that justifiest thy self before him Nay what art thou that condemnest God making him a lyar all the Scripture over the whole project whereof is this to let us know how unable how sick how dead we are of our selves and therefore ought most necessarily to have recourse to him for our salvation As for us Beloved Christians if we must needs rejoyce let us rejoyce in our infirmities let our glory be our shame and let us lift up our eyes and behold Is 63 1 2. Who is this that cometh from Edom with died garments from Bozrah This that is glorious in his apparel travelling in the greatness of his strength And Christ will say It is I that speak in righteousnesse mighty to save But wherefore Lord art thou red in thine apparel and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wire-fatt He will answer I have trodden the wine-press alone and of the people there was none with me for which reason I am now crown'd with glory and honour and immortality I alone am mighty to save and besides me there is none other 67. And good luck have thou with thine honour Ps 45. Oh Lord ride on because of thy word of truth of meekness and of righteousness and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things Terrible things for the King's enemies for them which would not have thee to rule over them And good luck have we with thine honour O Lord ride on because of thy word of truth of meekness and of righteousness and thy right hand shall teach thee gracious and comfortable things for us thy servants and sheep of thy pasture who dare not exalt a weak arm of flesh against thee Thy right hand shall mightily defend us in the midst of all our enemies Thy right hand shall find us out and gather us up though lost and consum'd in the grave though scattered before the four winds of heaven And thy right hand shall exalt us to glory and immortality for ever with thee in thy heavenly Kingdom where all the daies of our life yea all the daies of thy glorious endless life we shall with Angels and Archangels say Glory and honour and power and immortality be unto him which sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb and to the Holy Spirit for ever and for ever Amen Amen The Sixth Sermon LUKE XVI 9. Make to your selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations THE Children of this world saith Christ are wiser in their generation then the Children of Light To make which good our Saviour in somuch of the Chapter as goes before my Text brings in a Story or as they call it a Parable of a cunning Fellow yet no great Projector neither no very subtile Polititian notwithstanding one who being in an extremity turn'd out of his Office for mispending his Masters Goods had found out a shift and that by meer cousenage to procure so much as would serve to keep him indeed not according to the Port and fashion after which before
the state of the Question and the Doctrine of our Church in the words of one who both now is and for ever will worthily be accounted The glory of this Kingdome Bishop Usher's Ans to the Jesuit Cap. of Confession p. 84. Be it known saith he to our adversaries of Rome I add also to our adversaries even of Great Britain who sell their private fancies for the Doctrine of our Church that no kind of Confession either publick or private is disallow'd by our Church that is any way requisite for the due execution of that ancient Power of the Keys which Christ bestowed upon his Church The thing which we reject is that new pick-lock of Sacramental Confession obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessary to salvation by the Canons of the late Conventicle of Trent in the 14. Session 11. And this truth being so evident in Scripture and in the writings of the ancient best times of the Primitive Church the safest interpreters of Scripture I make no question but there will not be found one person amongst you who when he shall be in a calm unpartial disposition that will offer to deny For I beseech you give your selves leave unpartially to examine your own thoughts Can any man be so unreasonable as once to imagine with himself that when our Saviour after his Resurrection having received as himself saith all power in heaven and earth having led captivity captive came then to bestow gifts upon men when he I say in so solemn a manner having first breath'd upon his Disciples thereby conveying and insinuating the Holy Ghost into their hearts renewed unto them or rather confirm'd and seal'd unto them that glorious Commission which before he had given to Peter sustaining as it were the person of the whole Church whereby he delegated to them an authority of binding and loosing sins upon earth with a promise that the proceedings in the Court of Heaven should be directed and regulated by theirs on Earth Can any man I say think so unworthily of our Saviour as to esteem these words of his for no better than complement for nothing but Court-holy-water 12. Yet so impudent have our adversaries of Rome been in their dealings with us that they have dared to lay to our charge as if we had so mean a conceit of our Saviour's gift of the Keys taking advantage indeed from the unwary expressions of some particular Divines who out of too forward a zeal against the Church of Rome have bended the staffe too much the contrary way and in stead of taking away that intolerable burden of a Sacramental necessary universal Confession have seem'd to void and frustrate all use and exercise of the Keys 13. Now that I may apply something of that which hath now been spoken to your hearts and consciences Matters standing as you see they do since Christ for your benefit and comfort hath given such authority to his Ministers upon your unfeigned repentance and contrition to absolve and release you from your sins why should I doubt or be unwilling to exhort and perswade you to make your advantage of thi◠gracious promise of our Saviours why should I envy you the participation of so heavenly a Blessing Truly if I should deal thus with you I should prove my self a malicious unchristian-like malignant Preacher I should wickedly and unjustly against my own conscience seek to defraud you of those glorious Blessings which our Saviour hath intended for you 14. Therefore in obedience to his gracious will and as I am warranted and even enjoyned by my holy Mother the Church of England expresly in the Book of Common-Prayer in the Rubrick of Visiting the Sick which Doctrine this Church hath likewise embraced so far I beseech you that by your practise and use you will not suffer that Commission which Christ hath given to his Ministers to be a vain form of words without any sense under them not to be an antiquated exspired Commission of no use nor validity in these daies But whensoever you find your selves charg'd and oppressed especially with such Crimes as they call Peccata vastantia conscientiam such as do lay waste and depopulate the conscience that you would have recourse to your spiritual Physician and freely disclose the nature and malignancy of your disease that he may be able as the cause shall require to proportion a remedy either to search it with corrosives or comfort and temper it with oyl And come not to him only with such a mind as you would go to a learned man experienc'd in the Scriptures as one that can speak comfortable quieting words to you but as to one that hath authority delegated to him from God himself to absolve and acquit you of your sins If you shall do this Assure your souls that the understanding of man is not able to conceive that transport and excess of joy and comfort which shall accrew to that mans heart that is perswaded that he hath been made partaker of this Blessing orderly and legally according as out Saviour Christ hath prescribed 15. You see I have dealt honestly and freely with you it may be more freely than I shall be thanked for But I should have sinn'd against my own soul if I had done otherwise I should have conspir'd with our adversaries of Rome against our own Church in affording them such an advantage to blaspheme our most holy and undefiled Religion It becomes you now though you will not be perswaded to like of the practise of what out of an honest heart I have exhorted you to yet for your own sakes not to make any uncharitable construction of what hath been spoken And here I will acquit you of this unwelcome subject and from Zacchaeus his confession of his Sin I proceed to my second particular namely the nature and hainousness of the crime confess'd which is here call'd a defrauding another by forged cavillation 16. The crime here confessed is called in Greek Sycophancy Partic. II. for the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the understanding of which word in this place we shall not need so much to be beholden to the Classical Greek Authors as to the Septuagint who are the best Interpreters of the Idiom of the Greek language in the Evangelical writings Two Reasons of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are given the one by Ister in Atticis the other by Philomnestus de Smynthiis Rhodiis both recorded by Athenaeus in that treasury of ancient learning his Deipnosophists in the third Book which because they are of no great use for the interpretation of S. Luke I willingly omit 17. Now there are four several words in the Hebrew which the Seventy Interpreters have rendred in the old Testament by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the verbal thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One whereof signifies to abalienate or wrest any thing from another by fraud and sophistry opposed to another word in the same language which imports