from Heretiques because we affirme that all necessary doctrine concerning either Faith or Manners is not contayned expressly in scripture and that beside the written word of God there is required the vnwritten word that is Divine and Apostolicall Traditions c ād C. 4. the very title wherof is this The necessity of Traditions is proved in the beginning he sayth First we will endeavour to shew that scripture without Traditions was neither simply necessary nor sufficient Secondly that there are extant Apostolicall Traditions not only concerning manners but also Faith Is it not very strāge you should alledg Bellarmine for the sufficiēcy of scripture alone who in a whole booke containing twelue Chapters professes to teach and proue the necessity of Tradition or Gods vnwritten word and in most cleare words which even now we alledged declares how scripture is cleare and sufficient namely togeather with Tradition and Interpretation of Gods church But by this is confirmed what I sayd aboue how hard it is to find evidence in holy Scripture the matter and manner wherof surpasses all naturall witt seing the words of men are so confidently alledged out of those places wherin they purposely teach profess and proue the direct contrary of that for which they are produced as here you say that the words you cite out of Bellarmine are as you conceyue as home to your purpose as you could wish them 99. Object 2. You say Pag 337. N. 20. S. Luke plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary And Pag 212. N. 43. For S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospell that is as you speake the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ in my judgment it ought to be with them that belieue him no manner of question And this you endeavour to proue out of these words of S. Luke in the Introduction to his Gospell For asmuch as many haue taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst vs even as they delivered vnto vs which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word it seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thou hast bene instructed To this place you add the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles the former treatise haue I made ô Theophilus of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach vntill the day in which he was taken vp Therfor say you all things necessary to salvation are certainly contayned in S. Lukes writing alone 100. Answer First you falsify S. Luke in saying that he plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary For where do you find those words all things necessary And much less can you find that he plainly professeth to deliver all things necessary and least of all that he plainly professeth to deliver all necessary things plainly or evidently The Question is not between vs whether all necessary things be contayned in scripture obscurely or implicitely or in a generall way of referring vs to Gods Church for divers particulars but whether all necessary Points be contayned in scripture expressly in particular evidently without reference to the Tradition Interpretation or Declaration of the Church and it is evident that S. Luke hath no evident words to proue all that I haue sayd you must proue if you speake to the matter Which also appeares by considering that not only Catholiques amongst whom you will not deny but there are many learned pious and desirous to saue their soules but Protestants also see no such evidence for proving the sufficiency of S. Lukes Gospell or any other Gospell or particular Booke of Scripture taken alone seing their doctrine is that scripture contaynes all things necessary only after the Canon was finished and yet S. Lukes Gospell was written forty yeares before the whole scripture was written For this cause Protestants interpret Omnis scriptura vtilis est 2. Tim. 3.16 All scripture is profitable not distributiuè for every particular part or Booke of scripture but collectiuè for the whole Bible and some English Protestant Translation Ann 1586. hath not All scripture but the whole Bible is profitable where by the way is to be noted how they can helpe their errours by their different Translations and how litle credit is to be given to their Bibles Neither do Protestants commonly alledge these Texts of S. Luke for the sufficiency of scripture but other places as we haue seene aboue and who can imagine that they would haue omitted so pregnant a proofe if they were of your mynd concerning the evidence therof Remember here what you say Pag. 61. N. 24. The thing is not evident of it self which is evident because many do not belieue it How then can the words and meaning of S. Luke be evident of themselves seing so many both your Brethren and Adversaryes neither see nor belieue any such meaning Call also to mynd what you write Pag 99. N. 119. How shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plaine termes the Church of Rome is infallible This I retort and fay seing there is not I say not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ but not one learned writer for 1500. yeares after Christ that interprets this Text as you doe How shall I be assured that this place hath indeed this sense in it Yea even by this appeares the necessity of a living judg to declare the true meaning of this and other Texts of Scripture as occasion shall require 101. 2. S. Luke saith Assecuto omnia Having had perfect vnderstanding of All And the former Treatise haue I made of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach Of All All is a signe of Vniversality he that sayes all excepts nothing If therfor we follow the plaine obvious vsuall Grammaticall and Logicall sence it must signify that S. Luke delivered in writing absolutely all that our Saviour wrought and taught But this larg notion you cānot admitt without contradicting S. John Cap 21.25 But there are many other things which Jesus did which if they were written in particular neither the world it-self I thinke were able to containe those books that should be writtē Well thē being drivē from the Logicall ād seeming evidēt notion of All you must vnderstand All not in the whole latitude of the word but with some restriction I pray you shew vs this particular restriction not from any probable vncertaine topicall discourse of your own but from some certaine express evident Text of Scripture declaring this restriction But this is impossible for you to doe as every child will see Therfor this your argument is already at an end for as much as can be proved out of
suppose your owne tenet that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary that is vnless you begg the Question you cannot so much as pretend that every one of the Gospells contaynes all such poynts 4. you hold it only probable that every one of the Evangelists hath written all necessary points therfor you belieue it cum formidine oppositi and must think it not impossible but that some good reason may be alledged and much more imagined which is your word for the contrary 142. Secondly I answer you ought to remember that as the Apostles and other Canonicall Writers wrote not their owne humane sense but were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost of whom we must say Quis Consilarius ejus fuit Rom 11. V. 34. Who hath been his Counseller So you must not expect that we rely on your Topicall cōgruityes for finding out what in particular◠was fit for them to write that is what was the will of God that they should write What reason I pray you can be given why that Holy spirit did inspire foure Evangelists to write neither more nor fewer Why these men were chosen and not others Why they wrote no sooner and not all at once but at very different tymes Why they omitt millons of things and write others and those very few in comparison of those which they omitted and why rather these few in particular which they wrote than some few of those which they wrote not Why some things are written by all of them some only by some and some by one only VVhy other Canonicall VVriters write many profitable but not all necessary things and yet they were wise and honest men and wrote not in a negligent fashion And particularly what reason can be imagined according to your manner of discoursing why any of the Evangelists or other writers of scripture should leaue out any thing necessary for the whole Church as forme of Government Matter ād forme of Sacraments c and yet put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary either for the whole Church or every particular person or had they great care of what is necessary for particular men and regarded not what was necessary for the whole Church Of this we are very sure that they complyed with that end for which the Holy Ghost moved them to write and the conjectures of such considering men as you take pleasure to be styled cannot be of force with any religious mynd except to condemne you of presumption in prescribing to the Holy Ghost what he should haue moved the Apostles to write vnder payne of forfeiting the repute of vvise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 143. Thirdly I Answer If you will needs haue reasons though we must not rely vpon our owne reason in matters of this nature jam sure betterreasons may be given to proue that the Evangelists were not obliged to write all things necessary then you can with any least ground bring them vnder any such burthen 144. First he who will impose an obligation vpon another in the first place obliges himself to a positiue proofe of what he sayes For till that be done every one by the law of nature enjoyeth the liberty of which he is possessed as on the other side he who denyes an obligation of performing this or that doth sufficiently acquitt himself by pleading that no such obligation can be proved And this is not a bare word or voluntary affirmation as if in that case both contrary parts had equall reasons because neither of them seemes to bring any positiue proofe but such a denyall of an obligation not sufficiently proved is a solid and convincing reason grounded vpon positiue Axiom Melior est conditio possidentis in vaine therfor do you aske what reason can be imagined why any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c it being a most sufficient proofe that they had no such obligation because you can bring no positiue proofe for the contrary and if they were not obliged to do it how can you accuse them for doing so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion meerly because they do not that which they had no obligation at all to doe 145. A second reason may be not only imagined but truly deduced both from your particular Assertion and from the generall doctrine of Protestants You teach that he who wrote the First Gospell S. Matthew delivered evidently all things necessary which to the other Euangelists might be a very sufficient reason to hold themselves free from obligation of repeeting those things which had bene delivered already with evidence and which they did certainly know if the thing were true to haue bene so delivered And this reason vrges yet more concerning S. Luke who vvrote his Gospell after S. Matthevv and S. Mark had vvritten theirs and as I sayd did knovv certainly that they had vvritten all necessary points if indeed they had done so Lastly S. John before he wrote his Gospell had seene the Gospels of the other three Evangelists beside other canonicall scriptures and therfor might with good reason think himself disobliged from doing that which had bene done by so many before him And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture S. Matthew foreseeing all future Canonicall writings in which many necessary points were to be expressed might even according to your humane discourse moue him to omitt so me necessary points which he saw would be delivered in other Scripture or tradition especially if we reflect that a truth once delivered in scripture beleeved to be Gods word is a much as a million of tymes Now from the generall doctrine of Protestants that all necessary things are contained in the vvhole scripture collectiuè not in every part therof a cleare reason may be taken to disoblige the Evangelists from vvriting that vvhich they vvere sure could not but be vvritten in other parts or bookes of holy scripture because that Doctrine implyes that the sole-sufficiency of scripture is perfectly asserted and maintayned if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible though they be not all set downe in any one Part or booke therof 146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write which as I haue often sayd being not to make a Cathechisme or a Summe of Christian Doctrine what reason can be imagined that any of them should think himself obliged to set downe in particular all necessary points 147. Will you haue a Fourth reason Let it be this which may also serue for a wholsome and necessary document for you and such as you are we haue good reason to belieue that the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to express either in the Gospells or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things that we might be put vpon a wholsome and happy necessity
watchfull and vnerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may vndoubtedly receyue it sincere and pure you answer Very true and Pag 69. N. 46. to His saying That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority you answer expressly that he nâ—ed not proue it for no wise man denyes it And Pag 62. N. 25. you confess that we belieue not the bookes of scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For say you other bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it All which acknowledgments of yours make good what Cha Ma sayd that no writing alone can propose itself to be Authenticall and much less infallible and divine or can keep and preserue it self from corruption Seing then you grant that no writing alone can performe these things it followes that scripture cannot do them Or if any one writing can do so I hope you and Protestants who pretend so much to reverence scripture will not hold it any great crime in Cha Ma to haue sayd that if any writing alone were capable of these propertyes to proue conserue and interpret it self we would acknowledg scripture to be endued with them 182. But here Pag 55. N. 8. you make an Objection against Cha Ma in these words You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God I answer First There is no absolute necessity of this For God might giue it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly That it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so vnto vs. And thus though a writing could not be proved to vs to be a perfect rule of Faith by its owne saying so for nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a booke but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and containe all the materiall Objects all the particular Articles of our Faith without any dependance vpon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth contayne the Rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirme against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the booke called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertion when they are speken will belieue them never a whitt the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants doe contaynes all the materiall Objects of Faith is a compleat and totall and not only an imperfect and partiall Rule 183. I answer to your Objection and to your Answer that wheras you say to Cha Ma you will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it miâ—st be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God If you had cited his words aright you could not haue sayd you will say that although a writing be never so perfect c For every one would haue seene that he had sayd it already But you had reason to dissemble those words which were both evidently true and did clearly by way of anticipation confute what you say now that a writing alone may haue all propertyes necessary to a perfect Rule of Faith of which none can be more essentially necessary then that such a writing be believed to be infallible and that it can conserue itself pure and incorrupt which two qualityes yourself grant that no writing can haue as hath been shewed out of your owne words though now in your First Answer you either contradict them and yourself or els speake wholly impertinently to the purpose in saying there is no absolute necessity that a writing be beholding to Tradition to giue it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God For God might if he thought good giue it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles Good Sr. Reflect that the Question is whether any writing alone can giue to it self this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God and remember your owne words which I cited aboue out of your Pag 69. N. 46. that we need not proue that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority For no wise man denyes it You must therfor vnless you will contradict yourself grant that no writing alone is sufficient for such an effect and if God should doe it by Miracles it were not done by a writing alone and so it makes not for our present purpose But you will say in that case it should not be done by Tradition I reply that seing de facto God vseth no such Miracles as we did suppose as a thing evident by experience and which your self doe also suppose and therforteach every where that we can know by Tradition only that Scripture is the word of God and even here N. 8. in this Objection which we answer you say expressly Nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a Booke but only by Tradition which is a thing credible in it self Which according to you were not true if de facto God did give it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles It followeth that as things stand though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to tradition to giue it this Testimony that it is the word of God otherwise why do you teach that by Tradition alone we know Scripture to be the word of God Besides if you will fly to Gods Omnipotent Povver in vvorking Miracles for excluding the necessity of Tradition and a Living Judge you may ease men of all dispute about Scripture or necessity therof seing God can direct every man vvithout Scripture by perpetuall Miracles and make all as infallible in their Thoughts as the Apostles vvere in their words and writings We ought therfor to speake of things as they are and according to their natures and the way which God hath set downe without recourse to a meere possibility of Miracles against Experience teaching that He workes not such imaginary wonders Wherby I come now to proue that it is not only impossible for any writing alone to propose or proue and conserue it self but also to interpret its owne meaning because as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Chap 2. N. 3. It must be as all writings are deafe dumbe inanimate and being alwayes the same cannot declare it self any one tyme or vpon any occasion more
particularly than vpon any other and let it be redd over an hundred tymes it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate Controversyes in Faith than the Law would be to end suites if it were given over to the phansy and glosse of every single man 184. And this which hath bene sayd in generall of any one writing is in a particular manner to be affirmed of Holy Scripture or of any writing contayning Divine and sublime Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to naturall Reason For the height of such truthes moves the will and perswades the vnderstanding to seek out any sense of words though orherwise seeming cleare rather then to belieue things seeming evidently contrary to Reason Besides seing as I alledged out of Doctour Taylour in his § 3. N. 2. words may be taken in a litterall or spirituall sense and both these senses are subdivided For the litterall sense is either naturall or figuratiue And the spirituall is sometymes allegoricall somtymes anagogicall nay somtymes there are divers litterall senses in the same sentence as appeares in divers quotations in the New Testament where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes Seing I say this is so how it is possible that any one writing can be so evident both for words and meaning that all men by only reading the same words must be necessitated to take them in the same sense literall spirituall naturall figuratiue allegoricall anagogicall and that even of divers literall senses of the same Text every person must see all which if he do not he may misse in one though he chance to hitt right in another since there cannor possibly be assigned any infallible Rule which yet is necessary for settling an Act of Faith to know in particular when and where words capable of so many and so different meanings are determinately to be vnderstood in this or that sense If you say God might put a remedy to this diversity of meanings by setling the indetermination or diversity of mens vnderstandings with perpetuall Miracles effectually keeping them all to the same judgment of all the same places or subtracting his concurse to all contrary assents I answer this would be a strang kind of proceeding or Miracle neither would it make any thing to your purpose because as I sayd we speake of a writing taken alone without Miracle or Tradition And seing de facto God workes no such Miracle as we see by Experience in the disagreements of Christians concerning places of Scripture which for the words seeme very evident it followes that both for the divinity and Interpretation or true meaning of Scripture we must depend on Tradition or a Living Judge And thus is answered your Argument that no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus could haue writ vs a Rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible For I grant that our Saviour could by Miracle haue procured that all men should frame the same Judgment of the same words but deny that this could haue happened infallibly by meanes of any one writing alone which is our present Question and your having recourse to our Saviours extraordinary Power proves the very thing to be true which I affirme that it cannot be done by any one writing alone And when Charity Maintayned sayd we acknowledg Holy scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule every one sees by the whole drift of his discovrse and plain words that he spoke of a writing alone and considered according to the nature therof and in that course which God de facto holds without dreaming of Metaphysicall suppositions of your imagination or of flying to such Miracles as God neither hath nor for ought we can vvith any shadow of reason imagine ever vvill worke vniversally in the vnderstandings of all men to belieue with certainty the particular dogmaticall sense of words for the vnderstanding wherof they haue no certaine vniversall Rule either evidently seene by Reason or certainly believeed by revelation It is also evident that when Cha Ma spoke the aforesayd words of Scripture He compared it not with all writings which successively and without end may interpret or declare one an other but with any one writing taken alone which as I haue proved can not possibly propose conserue or interpret itself For as Scripture or the Bible is one whole work or booke so it ought to be compared only with one other writing or booke as also He spoke of a writing as it is contradistinguished from Tradition or a perpetuall Living Judg. But if you will be supposing a multiplication or as it were successiue addition of a latter writing to extend or declare the former you are out of our case of a sole writing and joyne a writing with a Living Writer and Judg and so grant perforce the very thing which we affirme and you pretend to deny If the Apostles were still Living to declare their former writings by word of mouth or new Scriptures we needed no other Living Judg but seing they are deceased and no one writing is sufficient to interpret it selfe we must haue recourse to some present alwayes existent and Living Judg for determining Controversyes of Faith and interpreting Holy Scripture I belieue the vnpartiall Reader will Judge that which you call Boyes-play to haue turned in good earnest to a greater disadvantage to yourselfe and your cause than you imagined And that your Arguments are of no force to proue that any one writing can of it self be a perfect Rule of Faith 185. We grant that whatsoever is spoken may be written and affirme that as no one writing so no one speech can be a compleat Rule of Faith but both the one and the other stand in need of some other speach or writing to declare them as occasion shall require neither do we pretend that the Church can set downe in any one writing all traditions and Interpretations or Declarations of all things belonging to Faith but she can and will by severall writings declare Doubts as they shall occurre necessary to be determined You say Neither is that an Interpretation which needs againe to be interpreted as if a word or writing or Interpretation might not be cleare for some part and yet need a further Declaration in some other respect or point or purpose or for such as did not fully vnderstand the first Interpretation And as you say it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so vnto vs so it is one thing to be a true yea a full Interpretation in it self another to appeare so without addition of some other declaration as also the first interpretation may giue some light yet to be further perfited by some subsequent exposition None can deny that the Canonicall Writers of the New Testament
delivered by word or writing and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such which sufficiency of proposition is required in all articles of Faith fundamentall or not fundamentall before one can be obliged to belieue them 27 Since then according to your Doctrine we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God yea and may reject it It remaines true then as I sayd in the last Chapter Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith although we should falsly suppose that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed For what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith to read any Point in that Booke which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue Let vs now come to another errour of yours 28. Your second errour I find Pag. 144. N. 31. where you write thus If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they dâ—livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstaÌ„ding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both h o and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes And Pag. 145. N. 33. you say the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures 29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine and receyved as Divine Truth 1. It must be delivered constantly 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles and these conditions you require for every part therof For you say the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part and then you add expressly this limitation I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine Divine Truth and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills did frame that opinyon out of some apprehended Revelation for example In viam gentium ne abieritis Matth 10.5 Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not or Matth 15.24 I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel or some other and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth yet they were deceyved in that Poynt because it wanted the other conditions of constancy and Attestation of Divine Miracles and consequently your doctrine must be that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost might faile in some of them and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion 30. If this be so what certainty can we now haue that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation Ephes 2.20 haue not erred in writing as then they erred in speaking And in particular whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which Pag 137. N. 21. You cite out of S. Matth 29.19 Goe and teach all Nations And so at this present we cannot be certaine whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching or in their second of preaching the Gospell to Gentils If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost they could erre in neither without it in both and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted and how can you be certaine that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre You grant Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing Seing therfor you teach that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing which God required them to belieue and commanded them to practise according to your owne saying we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing What the Apostles spoke or preached they might haue written it is your owne saying Pag 54. N. 7. Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written neither had it bene more or less true or false by being committed to writing than if it had bene only spoken or preached and so if they could erre in speaking we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe some errour proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice or some other cause as you speake Pag 137. N. 21. This I may confirme by what you say to Ch Ma Pag 84.86 D. Fields words I confess are somwhat more pressing and if he had bene infallible and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Booke In which words I note that although D. Field had bene infallible yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing for you speake of what he hath written in his Book and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible and actually to haue erred as you say they did why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings 31. If you answer that it belongs to Gods providence not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing and conveyed to posterity I reply by this very Reason it is cleare that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers especially since you pretend that this errour of theirs is
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith But you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. Ye are the salt of the earth said our Saviour to his Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
Religion of Protestants to be a safe way to salvation 16. But what if Mr. Chilling worth devest Protestants of that so needfull qualification by ignorance which he denies not to vs I will faithfully relate his words and leaue others to judge what a champion Protestants haue chosen Ch Ma part 1. Cap 5. N. 32. objects to Protestants that their departure from the Roman Church vpon pretence of errour could not be excused seing by leaving her they could not hope to avoide the like vnfundamentall nor be secured from Fundamentall errors To this Mr. Chillingworth Pag 290. N. 87. answers that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to avoide errors of the like nature and quality with ours which he confesses to be vnfundamentall that they proclaime to all the world that it is most easy and proue to so to doe all those that feare God aÌ„d love the Truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety I will not insist here how strange and even ridiculous it is in him to say that it is most prone and easy for Protestants not to fall into errors at least not Fundamentall yea that it is hardly possible for them not to avoide such errours seing they disagree so irreconciliably among themselves and diverse of them fall into those pretended errours which we maintaine against Protestants all which one would think could not happen if it were most prone and easy for Protestants to avoide such errours and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise that is not to avoide them without supine negligence and extreame impiety But that which I saie now is That seing de facto he confesses Protestants to hold errours yea millions even the greater parte of them to be in error by their owne fault as we haue seene aboue it followes that in his judgment they are actually guilty of â—upine negligence and extreame impiety which vices certainly cannot stand with invincible or probable ignorance and so all erring Protestants are excluded from Mr. Chillingworths Excuse or Sanctuary of ignorance 17. Nay what if he hold the errours of Protestants to be vnpardonable Sure I am he saieth Pag 275. N. 58. God is infinitely just tod therefore as it â—â— to be feared will not pardon them who might easily haue come to the knowledg of the Truth and either through pridâ— or obstinacy or negligence would not Now we haue heard him avouch that it is easy for Protestants to come to the knowledg of the Truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety and therefore it is to be feared God will not pardon them even in the opinion of Mr. I hil their selected Advocate though for ends of his owne he thought fit to publish his Book vnder this Title the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation 18. I saied in the third place That vnless he confess the Religion of Roman Catholiques to be a safe way to salvation he must not only affirme The Religion of Protestants not to be a safe way but also that Christian Religion is not a safe way to salvation And the Reason is cleare out of what hath bene saied already For seing he holds it not necessary that any Church be free from errours vnfundamentall and that the whole Church before Luther was infected with such errours and that at this day Protestants erre damnably I wonder of what ChristiaÌ„ church he can say with Reason it is a safe way to salvation if he deny it to the Roman Church which he confesses not to erre fundamentally And therefore if any Christian Church be a safe way we are safe even in the Principles of I hil and Potter And what greater security can be desired than when all sides both friends and Adversaries confess our possibility to be saved whereas we cannot with truth giue any such hope to Protestants without Repentance and retractation of their errors (a) Maximus hom 1. in Festo Palchae validis absque dubio uititur privilegijs qui causam de adversarijs assent instrumentis Speciosa victoria est contrariam partem chartulis suis velue proprijs laqueis irretire testimoniorum suorum vocibus confurare aemulum telis suis evincere vt pugnatoris tur argumenta tuis probentur vtilitatibus militare 19. I will say no more by way of Preface but only signify in a word for the Readers necessary knowledg or remembrace that there having bene printed a litle elegant and pithy Treatise with this Title Charity Mistaken with the want whereof Catholikes are vnjustly charged for affirming that Protestancy vnrepented destroies salvation And this Treatise having bene answered by Dr Potter the Doctors Answer was confuted by a Reply intituled Mercy and Truth Or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques To this Reply Mr Chillingworth published an Answer with this Title the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation against which diverse litle Treatises were presently put forth as I saied aboue and now I haue endeavoured to answer it at large By Cha Mi I shall hereafter vnderstand Charity Mistaken and by Ch Ma Charity Maintayned I cite the Second Edition of Dr Potters Book and the Oxford Edition of Mr Chillingworths which only I haue or could procure when and where I was to write this Answer and for brevityes sake speak to him as if he were Living As still he lives in his profane Booke and his Booke lives in the vaine esteeme of men who yet preteÌ„d to be ChristiaÌ„s A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS An Introduction Touching the necessity of Divine Grace for all workes of Christian Piety Pag 1. Chap 1. Christian Faith necessary to Salvation is infallibly true Pag 37. Chap 2. All things necessary to be believed are not in particular evidently contayned in Scripture alone Pag 122. Chap 3. A Confutation of Mr Chillingworths errours against Holy Scripture Pag 279. Chap 4. A Living infallible Judge is necessary for deciding Controversyes in Matters of Faith Pag 352. Chap 5. In what manner and order wee proue the infallibility of the Church Pag 426. Chap 6. About Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points of Faith Pag 440. Chap 7. Protestants are guilty of the sinne of Schisme Pag 458. Chap 8. Mr Chillingworrths errours concerning Repentance are examined and confuted Pag 596. Chap 9. The answer to the Preface of Charity Maintayned is examined Pag 623. Chap 10. The answer to his first Chapter about the state of the Question and whether amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved Pag 630. Chap 11. The aÌ„swer to his Second Chapter concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our vnderstanding and which must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion Pag 648. Chap 12. The answer to his third Chapter about Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points Pag 707. Chap 13. That the Creed contaynes not all Points necessary to be believed in answer to
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
who may either see by this the disposition of the man and his contradiction to himselfe or gather how the infallibility of Faith is as it were the naturall sense of Christians since he who so much impugnes it cannot chuse but make ashew of defending it Pag. 410. he sayth For Arguments tending to proue an impossibility of all Diuine supernaturall jnfallible Faith and Religion I assure my selfe that if you were ten tymes more a spider than you are you could suck no such poyson from them My hart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the searcher of all harts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Booke but to confirme to the vttermost of my ability the truth of the Diuine and jnfallible Religion of our deare lord and Saujour Christ Iesus If this be true surely the Booke which goes vnder his name is supposititious or a changeling telling vs that the Conclusion followes the weaker of the Premises of which one is but probable wheras now you heare him auouching that Christian Faith and Religion is supernaturall Diuine and infallible To this I will add what he hath Pag 357. N. 38. Certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe belieue the Gospel of Christ as it is deliuered in the vn loubted Books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this Motiue because I conceyue it sufficiently aboundantly superabundantly prooued to be Diuine Reuelation And yet in this I do not depend vpon any succession of men that haue always belieued it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath bene no such succession and yet do not find my selfe any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my selfe that I should not be mooued This I say and this I am sure is true The Reader may make of those words as verily as that it is now day That I see the sight c What he pleases I will only say that if Christian Faith be only probable it is either foolery or hypocrify in him to tell the world that he would not be mooued though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it For who would not sooner belieue an Angell from Heauen than the confessed fallible testimonyes of men on earth And therefore if he speake as he thinkes he must either acknowledg Christian 〈…〉 be infallible and so no authority gainsaying it can be by liued or else he cannot avoyde a non sense in preferring 〈…〉 probability before an Angell from Heauen 40. Whatsoeuer his words and Doâ—â—â—â— be against the infallibility of Faith I am sure that in deeds none doth bring better proofe for it than hee by pleading against it with Reasons and Arguments which may be so clearly answered as that euery one cannot but giue sentence for the Possession of Diuine infallible Faith seing no new Argument of worth or weight is produced to impugne it 41 That I may not seeme only to say and not proue this I must craue pardon if in answering his Objections I may perhaps seeme long and might justly be censured for tedious vnless my desire and intention were not only to answer but by Gods holy assistence to confute and retort his Arguments and so proue the Truth as also incidently to treate some materiall poynts which will offer themselues by occasion of his Objections and for themselues should not haue bene omitted And so I hope this length will bring with it a fourfold commodity This being done Christian Faith will keepe its Right to infallibility without any other positiue Reason to proue it though I haue brought diuerse and many more might be alledged and some who are sayd to cry vp Chillingworths Arguments will I hope see how flat and low they will be found to lye by being impartially considered and duly examined 42. His first and chiefest Objection which only hath any shew of dissiculty namely that The Motiues of Credibility being only probable Faith it selfe cannot be certaine he tooke from Catholike Diuines but dissembled their Answers and wanted humility to captiuate his vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Faith as they did and all good Christians ought to doe though neuer so many difficultyes should offer themselues to the contrary But this Objection I haue answered at large and turned it vpon himselfe in seuerall wayes and occasions needless to be repeated and therfor I come to his other Objection 43. Object 2. pag. 326. N. 4. Euery text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake or of any that were strong in Faith of any that were of little or any that were of great faith of any that abounded or any that were rich in Faith of increasing growing rooting grounding establishing confirming in Faith Euery such text is a demonstratiue refutation of this vaine fancy prouing that Faith euen true and sauing Faith is not a thing consisting in such an indiuisible point of perfection as you make it but capable of augmentation and diminution Euery prayer to God to increase your Faith or if you conceyue such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your Faith the Apostles praying to Christ to increase their Faith is a conuincing argument of the same conclusion 44. Answer Not to take notice of his improper speach of augmentation and diminution in Faith which are appropriated to Quantity as intension and remission are propertyes of Quality the grouud and supposition on which this whole objection goes is manifestly vntrue namely that we make Faith to be a thing consisting in an indiuisible point of perfection wheras all Catholike Diuines teach that it hath degrees of perfection and intension no less then Hope and Charity and that de facto it receyues increase by euery meritorious act togeather with justifying Grace The Holy Councell of Trent Sess 6. C. 10. gives this Title to that Chapter Of the merease of justification already receiued c. And concludes it with these words Hoc justitiae incrementum petit Sancta Ecclesia Dominica 13. post Pentecosten cum orat Da nobis Domine Fidei Spei Caritatis augmentum This increase of justice the Holy Church doth ask when she prayes Giue vs ô Lord increase of Faith Hope and Charity You see we thinke it not derogatory from the perfection of our Faith as you are pleased to speake to pray for increase therof Who is ignorant that in Qualityes We are to distinguish between their essence which consists as it were in an indiuisible poynt and degrees of intension which may be increased within the compass of the same Essence otherwise it were not intension but the production of another Species or Essence as we experience in heate light and
ground of Protestāts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment mēt I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged ādshew that they are neither evidēt nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them ād the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple ād successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commādemēts ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by
which rather declare the difficulty and obscurity than the facility and evidence of Scripture For what great paynes and industry can be required to fynd out that which is evident And therfor S. Chrysostome sayth that our Saviour remitted the Jewes not to a simple and bare reading of the scripture but to a very diligent search therof For he did not say Reade the scriptures but search And Euthymius sayth He bids them digg more deeply into them that they may fynd out those thinges which are deeply layd vp therin like a treasure How then is it evident that Scrutamini signifyes evidently that all things necessary are cleare in scripture alone And yet we must remember that our B. Saviour spoke those words in order to the greatest and most essentiall Article of Chritian Faith to witt that Jesus Christ is the true Messias about which Poynt the Eunuch Act 8.34 had need that Philip should interpret Esay vnto him I beseech thee of whom doth the Prophet speak this Of himself or of some other To which purpose S. Hierome to S. Paulinus sayth of this Eunuch So great a lover of the Law and of divine knowledg was he that even in the chariot he read holy scriptures And yet when he had the book in his hands and conceyved our Lords words in his thoughts repeated them with his tongue sounded them with his lipps he was ignorant of him whom he worshipped vnknowen though yet it were hee of whom the booke did speake And Luk 24.27 the disciples stood in need that Christ should interpret vnto them in all scriptures which were concerning him What greater Mystery than this concerning Christ himself and how was it evident in Scripture when even the Disciples who were brought vp in the Schoole of Christ vnder such a Maister whose Divine words they heard and saw his admirable works and Miracles did not vnderstand it How many wayes is this Objection against Protestants and nothing at all against vs 63. Neither will they gaine any more by those words Joan. 20.31 which Chilling also objects Pag. 211. N. 42. These are written that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Son of God and that beleeving you may haue life in his name For First what makes this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to rely on scripture alone for all matters of Faith In these words there is no command even to reade S. Iohns Gospell but they only declare the end and occasion which moved him to write it namely to confute the Ebionite Heritiks and proue that Iesus is the son of God which makes good what I sayd hertofore that the Evangelists did not purposely intend to deliver all things necessary to salvation or make a Catechisme but wrote according to severall different occasions as now we see that if the Ebionites had not taught that wicked Heresy S. Iohn had not written his Gospell And therfor 2. This Text speaks of one Point only not of all Articles of Faith 3. S. Iohn speaks only of his owne Gospell and Chilling holds it only for probable that every one of the Gospells contaynes all necessary Points and therfor no certainty can be taken from these words that Scripture contaynes all things necessary 4. Even for this one Poynt of Faith S. Iohn sayes not that his Gospell is evident excluding the Authority of Gods Church and her Pastours yea he carefully relates our Saviours words to S. Peter Ioan. 21.17 Feed my sheep and we see for want of submitting to such Authority Chilling and other Socinians deny that for which s. Iohn wrote his Gospell that Iesus is the true sonne of God 5. In the Text These things are written that you may belieue c. s. Iohn speaks not of the doctrine taught but of the Miracles wrought by our Saviour Christ and therfor we must if this Objection were of any force say that all things necessary to salvation are evidently contayned in that part or those words and lines of his Gospell which precisely recount our Savionrs Miracles which to imagine is ridiculous and absurd Now that s. Iohn speaks of our Saviours Miracles is confessed by Whitaker as a thing evident de scripttur Q. 5. P. 619. saying It is evident that the Evangelist speakes of the signes and Miracles of Christ not of his Doctrine The Protestant Bible sayth Many other signes truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this booke But these are written that ye might belieue that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God Where we see these are written is referred to the substantiue which went before that is signes and it appeares also by reflecting on the Antithesis which he makes betweē not written and wtitten Many are not written which he sayes of signes many other signes truly did Iesus which are not writtē and then adds but these are writtē Therfor writtē and not written fall vpon the same thing But not written did relate to signes or miracles Therfor written must be refered to the same Chilling himself Pag 211. N. 42. saith By These are written may be vnderstood either these things are written or these signes are written And then what consequence is this S. Iohn wrote some Miracles of our Saviour Christ that men might belieue him to be the son of God Therfor all necessary Points of Faith are evident in scripture or in S. Iohns Gospell taken alone And he doth but play the Sophister to deceyue some simple Reader when out of S. Iohns words in the same Pag. 211. N. 42. he infers that All that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them believe that which being beleeved with liuely Faith would certainly bring them to Eternall Life For a lively Faith or a Faith working by Charity must include not only that one Article Iesus is the son of God but all other Mysteryes of Faith togeather with the keeping of all Commandements belonging to Charity and other Vertues and it may be sayd of any least Poynt of Faith that it being believed with a lively Faith will certainly bring the believer to Eternall life because a lively Faith involves all other necessary Poynts of Faith and Manners And his silent leaping from Faith alone yea from one only Article of Faith alone to a lively Faith demonstrates that the believing of that Poynt alone Iesus is the son of God is not sufficient for salvation vnless it be joyned with the belief of other Points belonging both to Faith and Manners and with observation of the Commandements which he will never proue to be evidently contayned in the scripture alone and much less in the Gospell of S. Iohn alone wherof more shall be sayd herafter In the meane tyme take for your Instruction these wholesome words of S Austine de vnit Eccl Cap 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ is the son of God yet so dissent from his Body which is the Church as their Communion is not with
the whole wheresoever it is spred but is found separate in some parte it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation only to belieue that Christ is the sonne of God 64. The example of men of Beroea Act 17. V 11. who were searching the scriptures if these things were so is of no force in many respects First Heere is no least insinuation of any vniversall precept to reade or search the scriptures but only a narratioÌ„ of what those meÌ„ did and if the fact of some may be alledged as a command for all to reade the scriptures why may not the example of others who belieued only by hearing S. Paule and the other Apostles preach and seeing them worke Miracles and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Creâ—â—â—bility be alledged for a command that men should belieue without delaying their conversion till they reade scriptures Secondly they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular Mysteryes of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them which is our question but only that mayne poynt which was preached to them by S. Paule that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you V. 3 other particular poynts they would easily learne by further instruction of the Apostles being once assured in generall that they were persons worthy of all credit and Messengers of God Thirdly The scriptures which they did search were the Bookes of the Old testament in which all the necessary particular poynts of Christian Faith are not evidently contayned since Protestants teach that all necessary poynts are contayned in scripture only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended yea the word searching shewes that euen that article of the true Messias was not evidently contayned in the Old testament but that the finding of it required labour as in the like case I shewed aboue out of S. Chrissostome and others about the word scrutamini search Fourtly Although the search of scriptures and consonance of them with s. Paules wordes might help the conversion of those meÌ„ yet who can doubt but the preaching and viva vox interpretation and explication of scripture alledged vrged and illustrated by S. Paul did also cooperate and operate more then the only reading of scriptures which many did reade and yet were not converted Which shewes their obscurity even in this Fundamentall Article concerning the Messias as we reade Act. 13.27 Not knowing him nor the voyces of the prophets that are read every sabboth And Luc. 24.44.45 it is sayd These are the words which I spake to you when I was with you that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses and the Prophets and the Psalmes of me Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstaÌ„d the scriptures Wherfor the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose vnless it can be proved that they redd the scripture without the assistance of such other meanes as I haue mentioned and that they found theÌ„ so â—â—ident that they needed no other help which certainly is wholy impossible to be proved Even Cartwright in whitg Def. P. 784. confesseth that Vnless the Lord workes miraculously and excraordinarily the bare reading of the scriptures without the preaching caÌ„not deliver so much as one poore sheepe from destruction Therfor scripture is not evident in all necessary Poynts otherwise it might deliver men from destruction Fiftly I say that not only those men had no obligation to read the scripture before they believed S. Paul but as the rhemes testameÌ„t vpon this place wisely observes they were bound to belieue the Apostle aÌ„d obey his word whether he alledged scripture or no or whether they could reade and vnderstand it or no. Therfor this example cannot be alledged to proue that all necessary Poynts of Faith are evident in scripture alone Sixtly This example is wholy impertineÌ„t if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort aÌ„d confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul aÌ„d not by searching the scriptures as Cornelius à Lapide holds and to that purpose alledges the Text itself which sayth V. 11. And these were more noble theÌ„ they that are at Thessalonica who receyved the word with all greediness daily searching the scriptures if these things were so Where first it is sayd they receyved the word and then were searching the scriptures And this also is the judgment of the Rhemes TestameÌ„t 65. Besides the places which I haue answered Protestants are wont to alledg the words of the Apocalyps 22. V. 18.19 I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecie of this Booke If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues writteÌ„ in this book And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life aÌ„d out of the holy citie aÌ„d of these things that be writteÌ„ in this booke But what is this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to reade and seek out of the Apocalyps alone for of it only S. Iohn expressly declares himself to speake all necessary Poynts of Christian Faith or that it contaynes evidently all such points in particular So farr was this sacred booke from having been written for a Catechisme or an entire Rule of Faith that it is a Prophecy or revelation of things to come so hidden and sublime and profound that S. Hierome sayth Tot habet SacrameÌ„ta quot verba Every word is a Mystery The curse which S. John interminates falls vpon such as either would add any thing contrary to this book or corrupt it by fathering on it some apocriphall writing or Revelation or diminish it by some part or which is worst of all quite abolish it as not Canonicall as in old tyme Marcionistae Alogiani Theodosiani as witnesseth Epiphan Lib. 2. Heres 51. did And Erasmus Lutherus Brentius and Kemnitius doe The Author of the Commentary vpon this booke bearing the name of S. Ambrose saith that He curses Heretikes that vsed to add somwhat of their own that was false and to take away other things that were contrary to their Heresyes But God forbid we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawfull Pastours since S. John himself as long as he lived was a Living Rule or Iudg for matters of Faith besides the word written in the Apocalyps or in other Canonicall scripture and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith Yea S. John after the sayd curse adds two verses more and Cornel. a Lapide Quest Proaemialib in Apocalypsim saith it is cleare that S. John wrote the Apocalyps before he wrote the Gospell For this he wrote being retourned from his banishmeÌ„t of Patmos where he wrote the Apocalyps as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script Ecclesiast and Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 24.
and S. Austine and Bede Proaemio in Evangelium S. Ioannis Kemnitius also Exam. Pag. 202. confesses that S. John wrote his Gospell after the Apocalyps And Cornel. a Lapide Proaem in Epist 1. S. Joannis speaking of S. Johns three Epistles sayth It seemes that he wrote them about the same tyme that he wrote the Gospell By which account they were written after the Apocalyps Therfor that curse in the Apocalyps cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude all other writings after it 66. But the chiefest place which Protestants are wont to alledg for the sufficiency of scripture alone is that of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3. V. 16.17 All scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke I answer First Speaking in rigour Profitable Necessary sufficient are things both different and separable A thing may be profitable and not necessary and a thing may be both profitable and necessary for some effect and yet not sufficient alone to produce it Every line in Gods word is profitable but not every line is either necessary or sufficient Our question is whether scripture alone be sufficient The text alledged saith only that it is profitable but saith not that it is either necessary or sufficient Therfor if we consider this place alone Faith may be conceyved without any scripture because scripture heer is not sayd to be necessary and cannot be conceyved by scripture alone because scripture is not sayd to be sufficient And then the argument comes to be retorted in this manner That which is no more than profitable is neither necessary nor sufficient but in the text alledged which Protestants bring as sufficient to proue the sufficiency of scripture scripture is only sayd to be profitable Therfor it is neither necessary nor sufficient 67. Secondly The words precedent to this text are these but thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thine infancie thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith which is in Christ Jesus By which words it appeares that the scripture of which S. Paul speakes is the Old testament which alone Timothy from his infancy had knowen and which could instruct him to salvation And therfor if this Objection be good the Old testament taken alone wil be sufficient for salvation and if it be a good consequence scripture is profitable to instruct therfor it is necessary and sufficient the Old testament which could instruct Timothy to salvation must be necessary and sufficient even for these tymes or if they were sufficient for those but not for these our tymes and that it be cleare that S. Paul spoke of those tymes and only of the Old testament as is confessed by Henoch Clapham Aretius Zwinglius Hooker and Ochinus as may be seene triple Cord. Chap. 7. Sect 5. with what conscience can they apply that text to vs as if the scripture of which that text speakes did signify the scriptures both of the Old and New testament Nay seing S. Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy about forry yeares before the Canon of scripture was perfited and that Protestants affirme that a living Iudg was necessary till the Canon was complete it followes that the text whith they alledg cannot signify that at that tyme the scripture alone was either necessary because there was then a living Iudg which could determine all Controversyes or sufficient because the Canon was not finished And therfor although it were granted that the Old Testament which was perfited had alone beene evident in all necessary poynts and therby sufficient for the Jewes yet the scripture of the New Testament being not perfited when S. Paul wrote these words it doth not follow that they can signify their sufficiency for Christians As Hooker Eccles Polit. First Booke N. 14. Pag. 43. sayth When the Apostle affirmed vnto Timo thy that the Old was able to make him wise to salvation 2. Timoth. 3.15 it was not his meaning that the Old alone can do this vnto vs which liue sithence the publication of the New Mark how this great man amongst Protestants affirmes that S. Paul speaks only of the Old scripture and that this alone is not sufficient for Christians which he proves because the Apostle sayth that those scriptures were able to make Timothy wise through the Faith which is in Christ V. 15. And this appeares also by the words of S. Paul saying to Timothy in the same Chapter V. 10. But thou hast attayned to my doctrine institution c. And afterward But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned That is of S. Paul his Maister Where we see that S. Paul did not send his scholler to Scripture alone but to his owne Institution Doctrine and interpretation and things committed to him by word of mouth or to scripture taken togeather with an infallible Living Iudg and so the Objection proves what we teach and overthrowes the doctrine of Protestants 68. Thirdly Protestants must shew that all things necessary are evidently contayned in scripture and this they must proue by some evident Text. For if it be not evident the matter will still remayne vncertayne But this Text on which they chiefly rely is not evident Therfor it is not sufficient to proue that which they intend and vpon which the whole Fabricke of their Faith depends The minor That this Text is not evident is evidently proved because it is impossible to shew evidently that profitable in this Text signifyes necessary or if that were freely granted it will remayne more than impossble to proue that profitable or necessary must in this Text signify sufficient For by what Grammer Logick or Divinity can any dreame this to be feceable The like I say of the words All scripture which they interpret not to signify every part or Book of Scripture but the whole body of Canonicall scripture taken togeather wheras Bellarm. de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 10. saith truly In the judgment of all that vnderstand latin that which is sayd of all scripture inspired of God is of sayd every booke which is inspired of God Beside the Apostle by this Vniversall proposition that all scripture is inspired by God proves that every particular scripture is profitable and that the scripture of the Old Testament which Timothy had knowen from his infancy was profitable to instruct him to salvation And therfor as every part of scripture is inspired so also is it profitable And this is more cleare according to the Protestant Englsh Translation Anno 1611. and 1622. and Greeke Text All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine c Where we see that of the same thing or subject and by the same word scripture it is sayd
had rashly presumed to write things wherof they had not full knowledg he intending hereby to withdraw vs from others vncertaine narrations And Cornel. a Lapide vpon S. Luke observes that S. Luke wrote the Gospell against some idle ignorant and perhaps false Evangelists who in Syria or Greece had written the Gospell imperfectly yea perhaps lyingly as S. Luke himself insinuates in the beginninge of his Preface in saying that for as much as many had taken in hand to set forth a declaration c. it seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first to write to thee in order c So Origen S. Ambrose Theophylact here c. S. Luke therfor taxeth Apocryphall Gospells which went about vnder the name of Matthias Thomas and other Apostles Wherby it appeares that S. Luke never thought of making a Catechisme or giving a Catalogue of all points necessary to be believed but to secure vs from falshood errours vncertainty or fables which indeed might haue made the whole Gospell of Christ suspected whether the poynts contayned in such apocryphall Writers be supposed to haue bene many or few necessary or only profitable c. And therfor we may say that as others wrote against false Teachers so this Holy Evangelists wrote particularly against false Writers with which End he declares himself fully to haue complyed by that care and diligence which he mentions in the Preface to his Gospell For by this necessary industry concerning All things he was enabled and secured not to deliver vncertayntyes or falshoods or fictions in those particular points which afterward he thought fitt to write whether they were to be many or few necessary or only profitable or some necessary and some profitable Neither was there any necessity or congruity that he should write all that by industry he came to know as will appeare in my next Consideration Now what a consequence in this S. Lukes Intention was not to deliver any false or vncertaine Narration Therfor it was necessary he should expressly set downe all things necessary to salvation The true consequence should be this and no more Therfore to comply with the sayd intention it was necessary he should not set downe any thing vncertaine false or fabulous And then I hope yourself will not allow this Consequence It was necessary he should not set downe any thing false or fabulous therfor it was necessary he should set downe all things necessary to be believed 107. 5. Considering with attention this place of S. Luke I observed him to affirme indeed that he had assecutus omnia attayned to the knowledg of all things but saith not vniversally that he had written all things but only indefinitely it seemed good vnto me to write to thee Good Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thow hast been instructed And who can doubt but that S. Luke attayned the knowledg of many particulars which he vvrote not in his Gospell Even in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles he setts downe some particulars which happened before our Saviours Ascension and are omitted in his Gospell or who dare say that he knew not one of all those innumerable things which S. John affirmes not to be vvitten by any As also vvhen it is sayd that S. Luke vvrote that Theophilus might knovv the truth of those words wherof he had bene instructed it cannot be doubted but that Theophilus was instructed in more Points then he could read in S. Lukes Gospell aone since as I sayd S. Luke in the Acts expresses somthing concerning Christ vvhich he hath not vvritten in his Gospell and Theophilus might haue redd the Gospells of S. Matth. and S. Mark and some other Canonicall scripture written before the Gospell of S. Luke and therfor the knovvledg or Faith of S. Luke and Theophilus extended it self to more Objects or Truths than are vvritten in his Gospell so that still vve see that All cannot be vnderstood of all simply but vvith divers limitations and degrees One All may signify absolutely all things that our blessed Saviour spoke or did Another All all things which S. Luke believed another all that vvherin Theophilus vvas instructed Another all that S. Luke intended to write and amongst all these and other limitations you will never be able to proue that your All that is all things necessary to be believed is the meaning of S. Luke 108. In this Reflection that S. Luke sayth he had vnderstood all but saith not that he wrote all I was not only confirmed but setled when I found it to haue been deliuered aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe by S. Ambrose in his explanation of this preface of S. Luke in these words visum est mihi assecuto omnia a principio c. It seemed good to me having attained to all things from the beginning to write to thee in order He sayes that he hath attayned not to a few things but to all and having attained to all it seemed good to write not all things but some of all things For he wrote not all but attayned to all for if all those things which saith S. John Jesus did were written I thinke the world it self could not containe them For you may perceiue that he purposely omitted those things also which had bene written by others to the end that a different grace might shine in the Gospell and every booke might excell as it were with certaine particular miracles of mysteryes and works To this we may add that S. Luke in the entrance to the History of the Acts of the Apostles saith that in his Gospell he had written of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach But it is certaine that he wrote not all that our Saviour Jesus did Therfor it is not certaine that he sett downe all that he taught 109. 6. Let vs suppose not grant that by All S. Luke vnderstāds all necessary poynts ād thē I pray you marke how you make him speake Because may have gone about to compile a Narratiō of the things will you haue vs add here necessary that haue been accomplished among vs it seemed good also to me having diligently attayned to all things necessary from the beginning to write to the in order that thou mayst know the verity of those necessary words wherof thou hast beē instructed And in like manner his Preface to the acts must goe thus the first speech I made of all things nacessary ô Theophilus which Jesus began to doe and to teach c Let I say S. Luke be falfly supposed to speake thus and then tell me what good sense will you find in those words of all things necessary which Jesus began to doe And how dare you limit the contents of S. Lukes Gospell to things necessary seing it containes many things not necessary Perhaps you think I do you wrong in saying you limite the word All to things necessary and that you say only that All must at least
by Catholiques or Protestants according to your grounds for the reason which I haue given 151 By what I haue sayd all your other demands or objections are answered If say you every one of them haue not in them all necessary doctrines how haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how haue they not deceived vs in giving them such titles By the whole Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man 152. Answer Heer is nothing but begging the Question in supposing without any proofe that the designe of the Evangelists was to write not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man that is all things necessary to salvation which is the very Point in Question and a contradicting your self in saying that the designe of the Evangelists was as the titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it and yet you say expressly that you vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that which makes vp the covenant between God and man which is but a part of the Gospell which containes many Historyes and truths not necessary to salvation Yea we see that S. Matthew begins his Gospell in an Historicall not a dogmaticall way saying The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ S Mark saith The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ and then passeth to the History of the appearing baptizing and preaching of S. John Baptist S. Luke after the Preface to his Gospell which Preface is a brief history or narration begins his Gospell with History There was in the dayes of Herod the King of Jewrie a certaine Priest named Zacharie c. S. John indeed begins his Gospell with a sublime point of doctrine In the beginning was the word c. against Ebion one of your progenitours who denyed Christ to be the Son of God consubstantiall to his Father and accordingly sayes Cap 20.31 These are written that you may belieue that Jesus Christ is the son of God which shewes that his purpose was not to make a Catechisme or set downe all points of Faith but to confute that particular Heresy and yet even this blessed Evangelist through divers verses of the same first Chapter relates how S. John gaue testimony of our Saviour to shew that his purpose was to write the History of Christ as the other three did and not to make a Catechisme as I sayd 153. But then say you How haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how haue they not deceyved vs in giving them such titles 154. Answer I have often told you that they haue written the whole Gospell and not a part of it for all that was to be written and written by them in order to that End which by instinct of the Holy Ghost they proposed to themselves Neither do the Titles of their Books signify any thing more and therfor not the titles deceyue you but you deceyue yourself and wrong the Holy Evangelists by framing a fictitious and false meaning of true Titles by your interpreting them to signify all particular Points necessary to salvation Thus S. Luke doth fully comply with the Title Acta Apostolorum The Acts of the Apostles though he speak nothing of some of the Apostles by name yea litle of any except of S. Paule nor all that might haue been said of him because he sets downe all that he intended to write according to the direction of the Holy Ghost And S. Chrisostome about the same Title of The Acts of the Apostles Lib. cont Gentil teacheth that Booke to be so called not that it contaynes all the Acts nor of all but only of one or two and even of those such as were easy to be set downe Nay if we speake in all rigour the word Evangelium which signifyes Good tidings is verifyed though one write not all good tidings and so Evangelium secundum Mattheum signifyes good tidings delivered by S. Matthew or the Book of good tidings written by S. Matthew which is litterally true though that Booke containe not all necessary Points The same I say of the other Evangelists And this observation doth clearly make voyd all your Arguments 155. But in this place also a difficulty offers it self which I bebelieue you will not answer otherwise than by acknowledging some contradiction and which turnes vpon yourself that which you impose vpon vs as if it did follow from our Doctrine that the Evangelists wrote not the Gospell but only a part of it wheras yourself alone are guilty of such a sequele where you say By the whole Gospell I vnderstand not the whole history of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Wheras therfore the Gospell according to your owne Division may signify two things and containe two parts namely The whole History of Christ And all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man that is all things necessary to salvation you restraine the Gospell to the second part and so you must answer your owne Objection How haue they complyed with their onwe designe which was as the Titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it You say then they write not the Gospell but a part of it And yet you also saie that their designe was to write the Gospell and not a part of it which is a plaine contradiction as I toucht aboue Againe you and every one must affirme that the Title Gospell c. as it signifyes the History of Christ is not taken vniversally for the whole History of Christ and then how can you with any shew of probability proue that the same Title must be taken vniversally as it is referred to Points necessary to be believed The titles themselves say not vniversally the whole or all the Gospell of Christ but indefinitely Gospell of Christ and by what Authority can you draw them vnto an vniversall signification and an vniversall of your owne to witt of all necessary Points 156. And here I make the same Argument which I made about the word all in S. Luke and aske whether the Gospell of Christ signify absolutely all things both necessary and profitable or els only things necessary or only things profitable or lastly at least all things necessary as Pag. 112. N. 43. You demand Whether in the Text of the Acts All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things You cannot say without contradicting S. John that the Gospell of Christ signifyes absolutely all things both necessary and profitable or only things necessary it being manifest that the Evangelists haue written
many things not necessary and you will not say that it signifyes only things only profitable which would overthrow your Assertion that they haue written all things necessary And therfor it remaynes according to your manner of discoursing that it signifyes at least all things necessary which cannot be sayd without absurdity as if the Evāgelists ād S. Mark in particular who beginns thus The beginning of the Gospell of Iesus Christ the Son of God as part of his Gospell had bin doubtfull whether they wrote only things necessary or both necessary and profitable and therfor to be sure not to erre did add at least 157. Before I ptoceed one thing is to be observed to wit that it seemes you are of Opinion that the Evangelists themselves gaue the titles to their owne Bookes For you say if every one of them haue not in them all necessary doctrines how haue they complyed with then owne designe which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how haue they not deceyved vs in giving them such Titles 158. But in this you are mistaken which beside other reasons appeares sufficiently by this that the inscription or Title of all the Gospells is the very same only the name of every patticular Evangelist being changed and S. Mark beside his particular manner of beginning his Gospell with these words The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the son of God hath also the same common Title which is prefixed before the other Gospells with difference only of his name And it is not likely S. Mark would haue repeated the same words In Protestant bibles Ann 1586. 1596. I find this Title The holy Gospell of Iesus christ according to Mark and the same they say of the other Gospells respectiue but Ann 1611. and 1622. they say The Gospell according to S. Mark where we see different words and some such as the Evangelists would not haue vsed calling themselves Saints or terming their owne writing The holy Gospell of Iesus Christ Do you think that S. Paul for example for his Epistle to the Romans gaue this Title The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans over and aboue that which he hath in the beginning of the Epistle it self Paul the servant of Jesus Christ to all that are at Rome the beloved of God called to be Saints Grace to you c Or that he premised this Title The first or second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians beside the particular address which he makes to them in the beginning of the Epistles themselvest The same I say of his Epistles to Timothy the Corinthians Thessalonians c Or do you belieue that S. John premised before his The second Epistle of John notwitstanding that in the Epistle it self he sayth The Seniour to the lady Elect and her childrē the like I say of the third Epistle vvhich begins the Seniour to Caius the dearest If then these titles were not given by the Evangelists they haue not deceyved you in giving such titles which they never gaue nor can it be gathered as you inferr that they haue not complyed with their owne designe which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it seing as I sayd those Titles are not theirs Besides if those Titles were not given by the Evangelists all your Arguments grounded on them are no proofes taken out of Holy Scripture which alone you ought to bring in the Principles of Protestants By the way I know not whether Protestants reflect that they haue in their bibles and reade publikly apocryphall Writings that is not Divine scripture which yet commonly most of them take to be scripture I meane the Titles of the Gospells Epistles and I might add distinction of Chapters and Verses c. And even out of the Premises I may conclude that if the meaning of the Titles of Canonicall books and in particular that which S Marke hath in the beginning of his Gospell which is a part of Scripture be not cleare who can believe that the meaning of the scripture it self is evident 159. You goe forward and say If this all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man be wholy contained in the Gospell of S. Mark and S. Iohn every considering man will be inclinable to beleeve that then without doubt it is contayned in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke 160. Answer You know we deny your supposition that all necessary Points are written in the Gospells of S. Mark and S. John And though your supposition or Antecedent were true yet your consequence or deduction is so weake that without doubt no considering man wil be inclinable to approue it For what a poore consequence is this The Gospells of S. Matthew and S. Luke are larger than the Gospells of S. Mark ād S. John Therfor if these containe all necessary Points those also must containe them As if some or many or all necessary Points might not be set downe within a small compass and none at all written in a larger Volume How many large Chapters are there in scripture which you will acknowledg not to containe any one necessary Point of Christian belief And yet the Apostles Creed which Dr. Potter and you affirme to containe all necessary Points of Faith consists not of very many words It is likely you are of opinyon that all Points absolutely necessary to salvation are very few and might perhaps be contained in a few lines or words in comparison of which small compass one Gospell may be truly sayd to be no larger than another because every man will be inclinable to belieue that three lines may be as well contained in a book of three Chapters as in a Volume of a great bulke as ten cubits may be esteemed as larg as twenty for the effect of containing a body of one cubit In fine all these your topicall toyes proue nothing till first you proue positively and solidly out of scripture that all necessary Points must necessarily be expressed in scripture and consequently that that was particularly the intent of the Evangelists Let vs see what proofes you can bring that S. Mark and S. John haue written all things necessary to be believed 161. You say P 210. N. 40. ād 41 that S. Marke wants no necessary Article of this covenant I persume you will not deny if you belieue Irenaeus when he sayes Matthew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell when Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and founded the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholler of Peter delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul compiled in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him and afterward Iohn residing in Asia in the Citty of Ephesus did himself also set forth a Gospell
Having set downe these words of S. Irenaeus you vrge them thus Pag 211. N. 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretikes that pretended as you know who do now a dayes that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour It is plaine therfor that be must meane as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Mark Now you will not deny I persume that S. Peter preached all therfor you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all In your Margent you cite S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. 162. Answer you set nor downe the Booke or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus I haue found it and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant and manifold that I scarcely know where to beginne the discovery or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraude 163 First In those words which you cite they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses it is only sayd that the foure Evangelists wrote their severall Gospells but it is not so much as insinuated that every one or all of them wrote all things necessary to salvation nor any least thing that may seeme to looke that way or to be for your purpose in āy other respect as shall appeare anone But your misery is that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture and in vertue of that begging supposition you extend indefinite Propositions as if they were vniversall and yet did signify not absolutely all as vniversalls are wont to doe but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation wheras S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all nor the words necessary Articles Your chief or only care should haue bene to proue positively a necessity that all things necessary should haue bene written in every one of the Gospells and then you might with some more shew of reason turne indefinite into vniversall propositions but your negatiue way or only asking questions what reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c will not satisfy S. Irenaeus teaches that S. Marke delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter but doth he say all those things which had bene preached by Peter He neither did nor could say so the thing being in it self manifestly vntrue For S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth which neither S. Mark nor any other of the Evangelists haue written as we may learne from S. John Chap. 21. and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonicall Writers haue written and can you affirme that S. Peter delivered none of those points And in particular could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ till his baptisme which yet S. Mark omitts as we noted aboue It is therfor evident that S. Irenaeus could not meane that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered and therfor he wrote only some and not all This then must be your Argument S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and much more but S. Mark wrote only some and not all that S. Peter preached therfor S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and more An Argument like to this God knowes all things Mr Chillingworth knowes some but not all things that God knowes therfor Mr. Chillingworth knowes all things Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 8. cites S. Irenaeus thus Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing those things which he had receaved from him where we see no vniversall but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus his purpose to treate whether or no the Evangelists or other Canonical VVriters did set downe all necessary points For he wrote against certaine absurd Heretiques whe denyed that God created Heaven and earth or breached some other such pernicious fooleryes which might be confuted out of scripture though it do not containe all other necessary points of Faith And it is too much boldness another would call it impudency in you to say that in the words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition and for this you cite S. Irenaeus Lib 3. Cap 2. and Pag 346. N. 30 you say Irenaeus had to do with Heretiques who somwhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fitt to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition c But in this your fraud is intolerable For those Heretiks of whom S. Irenaeus speakes when Catholikes did alledge scripture excepted not against it because it did not contayne all necessary truths or not the truth of Christ perfectly which exception could nothing availe them it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy if the scripture did containe as much as was contradictory to their errours supposing they did believe it to be the word of God but their exception was that it was not well written was false and not agreeing with it self as may be seene in that very third Booke and second Chapter which you alledg against vs in the words which now I haue cited out of you and therfor you cannot pretend ignorance for excuse of your want of sincerity Thus then S. Irenaeus in that Lib 3. Cap. 2. the title of which Chapter is Quod neque scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici That Heretiks obey neither Scripture nor Traditions beginns that Chapter with these words When they are convinced out of Scripture they fall vpon accusing the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor of sufficient authority and that they did varie from themselves and that truth could not be gathered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition These very words yourself Pag 361. N 40. alledg out of S. Irenaeus and say The Fathers vrged tradition against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not be found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane say
certaine things by writing and certaine by tradition with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto Cap. 27. saying some things we haue from scripture other things from the Apostles tradition c both which haue like force vnto godlines that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclus Pag. 689. ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius and S. Basil sayth I took not vpon me to control them but let the Church judge if they considered with advise enough c And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone that as may be seene in Brierley Tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 12. wheras S. Chrysostome saith in 2. ad Thessal Hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Pag 678. in answer therto sayth I answer This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father And wheras Eusebius Lib 1. Demonstrat Evangel Cap 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their doctrine partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law Whitaker Pag 668. saith therto I answer that this testimony is plaine enough but of no force to be receyved because it is against the Scripture And of S. Austine Cartwright saith in Mr. Whitgifts Defence Pag 103. If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures Yea not to insist vpon every particular Father Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Pag 87.89.90 reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen c Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Austine Hierome c And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost Epiphanius Tertullian Austine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascene c. Now sir are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing directly opposite to your contrary Assertion so often repeated but without any proofe which you know is but to begg the Question Of people without succession of Pastours which is the ground of Tradition we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists Lib. 2. cont Parm. Sunt sine Patribus filii c. They are children without Fathers disciples without maisters and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves 166. I will make an end of this matter if first I haue noted that it is a false glosse of yours like to that which I haue noted aboue and directly against S. Irenaeus that when he sayth those Heretiks taught that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition he must meane sufficient truth as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been that the scriptures were not right and came not from good authority but were various one from another as I haue shewed and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures but they could not assure vs of any truth at all Wheras you say to haue sayd against those Heretiks that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some necessary parts of it omitted had been to speake impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour I must say that your consequence is no less impertinent than your supposition is false because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying that part of the Gospell was written and some part omitted but by proving that the scriptures were true and of infallible authority which they denyed and also that beside scripture there are true Catholique Traditions opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks from which truth may be learned both which Points S. Irenaeus proves and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks that truth could be found neither by the scriptures nor by the Traditions of Catholiques and therby expressly makes good such Traditions and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith which is directly against that very thing for which you alledge him and proves my chief intent that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith To which purpose I beseech you heare your owne words Pag 345. N. 29. where you bring S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. speaking thus to those Heretiks Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust but yet moreover assure yourselves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrowne For our Tradition is farr more famous more constant and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their testimonyes against you But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine c Thus you And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus and in some words following those which I haue sett downe falsify his sense And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place yet this is sufficient to shew by your owne confession what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written since we may receyue them from the Church 167. By the way For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary because S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. saith Mark S. Peters disciple delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place saith Luke a follower of Paul wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him S. Paul To what purpose would you goe the further way about first proving that S. Mark hath all necessary points and from the nce inferring that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark must needs haue written all such things When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner as he speaks of S. Mark 168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John whom Pag. 211. N. 42. you would proue to haue written all necessary points because he saith Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this Booke But these
interpretation but that of Gods Church And it is an injury to the insinite wisdom of our B. Saviour to imagine that he left that for a sufficient Meanes to conserue Vnity which hitherto neither hath had nor ever will nor ever can haue that effect without a perpetuall great and vnusuall Miracle by making men different in all other things agree in the sense of Scripture You will not deny but that while the Apostles and other Canonicall writers were aliue the scripture ioined with such explication as they could giue by word of mouth or by writing new bookes was sitter to conserue vnity then now it is and by not making vse of such help of some authenticall interpreter it is sayd of the Epistles of S. Paul 2. Pet. 3 V. 16. that there were in them some hard things to be vnderstood which vnlearned and inconstant persons did depraue to their owne perdition as they did also other Scriptures Now the Church supplyes that want of the Apostles personall presence And so we may say of all Controversyes in Faith as S. Austine de vnit Eccles C. 22. writes concerning the Question about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretikes Seing we find not in Scripture that some pass to the Church from heretiks and were receyved as I say or as thou sayest I suppose that 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 performe what he should say least we might feeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beares witness to his Church And a litle after Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church 179. To your demand Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit meanes to conserue vs in vnity and keep vs from errour as the Decrees of the Church The Answer is easy and cleare First If one Decree be obscure it may be declared by another seing the church cā never perish 2. If any new cōtroversy in faith arise the Church alwayes living and present cā determine it by some new Decree or Declaration These conditions are wanting in scripture which is alwayes the same and wil be no more cleare or of any larger extent for the contents therof to morrow than it is to day nor can ' it speake and declare it self by it selfe but only can be declared by some living Judg or Interpreter And you are in a great errour if you conceiue that we hold any one Writing or Decree to be sufficient for deciding all Controversyes But we say that the Church vpon severall exigents can declare her mynd either by explicating former Decrees or by promulgating new ones as necessity shall require And for this cause there are extant so many Decrees of Councells c If we did yield to any one writing the sufficiency of ending all emergent Controversyes God forbid we should deny it to hòly scripture Neither do we distinguish Tradition from the written word because Tradition is not written by any or in any booke or writing but because it is not written in the scripture or Bible For Tradition hath this advantage that it may be both written and delivered by word of mouth and so be certainly conserved By these considerations is answered an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma and it shall be 180. Object 5. Pag 54. N. 5. You are pleased to speak to your Adversary in this manner In the next words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 2. N. 1. we haue direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgment made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledg say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule Only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition As if you should haue sayd we acknowledg it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be Either therfor you must revoke your acknowledgment or retract your retraction of it for both cannot possibly stand togeather For if you will stand to what you haue granted That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith as a writing can be You must then grant it both so compleat that it needes no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections you say N. 7. is so plaine that I am even ashamed to proue it For he that denyes 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 Answer me Whether your Church can set downe in writing all these which she pretends to be Divine vnwritten Traditions and add them to the verityes already written And whether she can set vs downe such interpretations of all obscurityes in Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If shee can let her doe it and then we shall haue a writing 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 no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus if he had pleased could haue writ vs a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible and then a writing there might haue been endowed with both these propertyes 181. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your words much more at large than was needfull the answer having been given already that no one writing can without a great and vnvsuall miracle be capable of being a perfect Rule of Faith and your Arguments proue no such matter as will appeare anone But first I must tell you that you cite Cha Ma very disadvantagiously or rather falsely thus We acknowledg scripture to be a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition and here you stopp wheras He added We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be vnwritten or an externall judge to keep to propose to interpret it in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Now that no writing is able to propose or proue it self to be authentiall or true or to keep and conserue it self Cha Ma proved ibidem N. 3.4.5.6 and the thing is of it self so true and evident that Pag 61. N. 24. to the words of Cha Ma The scripture stands in need of some
vnless we belieue it finally and for itself divers verityes contained in scripture shall not be materiall objects of our Faith and in particular all those of which S. John speakes Cap 20. V. 30.31 Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Booke And these are written that you may belieue that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Those Miracles then were written not for themselves but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth Jesus is Christ the Son of God and even the belief of this Truth is referred to a further end that believing you may haue life in his name And 1. Pet. 1.9 we read more vniversally that the end of our Faith is the salvation of our soules Besides this Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture 4. Sir Are you a Christian of any profession If you be then it must be manifest to all the world that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture Therfor scripture is one part or Object of your belief and this as you profess vnder paine of damnation and consequently it is not only an object but a necessary object to be believed and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must doe so that is belieue scripture seing you can haue no reason to in Christ but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture If then you teach as you doe that one is not bound to belieue Scripture but may reject it you must grant that by the same reason he may not belieue yea may reject Christ himself And now heare what you say Pag 116. N. 159. If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely and liue according to it such a man though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinyon is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vnderstanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved Therfor men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had beene proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned In some of these words you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting For not so much seemes to signify that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree but this very mincing of things shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify we must say that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili For if this truth scripture is the word of God be revealed it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith then the verityes contayned in it If it be not revealed it is not only not so much but not at all an object of Faith But your other words neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by them but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved do either directly signify that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith nor a thing revealed by God or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine or rather blasphemy that a truth revealed by God may be rejected which you cōfess is to giue God the ly And that finally this is your opinion scripture is not a materiall object of Faith appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117. Where you say This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submitt to better judgment For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your N. 159. Neither can you avoide this absurdity by saying one may reject scripture if it be not sufficiently propounded For you put the very case that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them saying God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned and yet it is a thing granted by all and evident of it self that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture or any other verityes vnless they be sufficiently proposed and therfor if you will make good the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof and not contradict yourself you must confess that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof but may reject it although it be sufficiently proposed yea it will also follow that the contents therof may be rejected the first and last and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word For they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture if first they be perswaded that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self from which alone they can come to know any such obligation And so protestant ministers
the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt
it by other Meanes which is by the Magistery of other men Faith comes by hearing that is by his Church which he hath commanded vs to heare vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes or extraordinary lights motions or rapts And so this very Providence of God in permitting some scripture to be lost or questioned for a tyme proves the necessity of a Living Guide and the no-necessity or no sole-sufficiency of scripture and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide 53. But then say you How is the Church an infallible keeper of sâ—ripture which hath suffered some bookes to be lost It is easy for vs to answer that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost we are sure the Church can and will supply that defect by the assistance which God hath promised Her as your Volkelius de vera Relig L. 6. C. 19. affirmes and endeavours to prove that by scripture alone the Church may be restored though she were supposed totally to haue fayled which conceit of his though it be but a meere chimera since it appeares by experience that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to be believed yet it demonstrates that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written But this answer cannot serue Protestants who on the one side cannot be assured that in those scriptures which were lost there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith and on the other are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture consists not in this that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes but that she be so directed as no scripture or other Meanes be lost if indeed they be necessary for salvation 54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority and Canonicallness must be answered by Protestants who receyue for Canonicall some books of which once there was some doubt neither will they pretend to restore to them authority or Canonicallness which in themselves they could never loose for what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written but only we may come to know that which we did not know or to be assured of that wherof some doubted Which yet you must not so vnderstand as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes and much less that she did deny or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning theÌ„ as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles and the Church in due tyme even by occasion of such doubt or denyall declared the Truths contrary to those Heresyes to be arricles of Faith and those books of which some doubted to be Canonicall Thus Potter Pag 216. teaches that the Apâ—â—â—â—es Creed as it was further opened and explayned in some parts by occasion if emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Conseantmople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius contains all fundamentall Points of Faith And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonicall nay degrading them from the number of articles of Faith aÌ„d putting theÌ„ among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For the church did not omit to declare in due tyme and vpon fit or necessary occasioÌ„ that they were Canonicall as the ancieÌ„t Councell of Nice of whose Creed your Church of England Art 8. saieth it ought throughly to be receaved aÌ„d believed by occasioÌ„ of the daÌ„nable heresy of Arius with whom you and your SociniaÌ„s agree declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith or put among disputable problemes aÌ„y Part of true Canonicall scripture aÌ„d therfor Cha Ma sayd truly that never aÌ„y booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall was questioÌ„ed or rejected for apocriphall either by the church or any Catholique to whom such a DefinitioÌ„ was sufficiently notifyed though Heretiks will still be doing what pride aÌ„d obstinacie may suggest In the meane tyme you will find that I haue already aÌ„swered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha Ma that never any book or syllable once defined c and of which you are pleased to say certainly it is a bold assertion but extremely false aÌ„d say Hee Cha Ma were best ruâ—b his forhead hard and say c But our answer is very obvious that the booke of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of S. James and to the Heb which you mention were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall yet that did not hinder but afterward some might be ignorant or doubt of them as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter You cite S. Gregory L 9. Morall C. 13. calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but L. 19. C. 17. which you might haue learned out of Potter who P. 259. cites the same authority as I haue set it downe This I would not haue noted if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter Potter I say makes the same objection out of S. Gregory and Cha Ma Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18. answers it at large and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did These then be the words of Charity Maintayned what you alledg out of S. Gergory is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and divine scriptures but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius or Legat at
practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the church fall into Errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not fail the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall writers are the foundation of the Church therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or
to wit the word of God who therfor will not deny his supernaturall concurse necessary to every true act of Divine Faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be left no meanes for the Faith and salvation of vnlearned persons from whom God exacts no more than that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their severall capacityes and vse such diligence as men ought to vse in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certaine that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted did heare every sentence he spoke but might belieue some by relation of others who stood neere 13. Three things then are necessary and sufficient for exercising an Act of Faith 1. That the ground itself be infallible 2. That it exist in that case for example that God haue indeed revealed such a truth 3. That he who believes proceed prudently Now to determine in particular when one may be judged to proceed prudently depends on divers circumstances of Persons capacity instruction c. What I haue exemplifyed in Scripture may be applyed to Divine Revelation in generall which could not be the Formall Object or Motiue of our Faith if it colud beare witness to any least vntruth and yet we may belieue by an Act of true Faith that which we only prudently belieue that God hath revealed if indeed he hath revealed it And so the first ground which I layd is true that the Foundation vpon which we finally rely must be absolutly certaine whatsoever the particular meanes by which such Foundation or Principle is applyed may chance to be This I say is true speaking of particular persons cases motives and as I may say in actu exercito without touching for the present other Questions 14. This ground being premised I demonstrate That both learned and vnlearned Catholikes haue a firme Foundation vpon which they build their Faith and that Protestants whether they be learned or vnlearned haue no such ground 15. First we haue proved that Scripture doth not contayne all necessary Points of Faith and therfor for those necessarie Points which are not to be found in Scripture they must either be ignorant of them or erre by denying them or els belieue them vpon the Authority of the Church which they expressly and obstinately hold to be fallible and so we may apply against them your owne words Pag 148. N. 36. where you expressly grant that vnless the Church be Infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to believe all that I haue to belieue one and therfor must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Out of which words it followes that you cannot believe any one Point of Faith for the Authority of the Church and that it were vnreasonable in you to doe so and an vnreasonable and imprudent Act cannot be supernaturall or be pleasing to God nor proceed from the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost as every Act of Divine Faith must doe Therfor since Protestants rely vpon Scripture alone which contaynes not all necessary Points of Faith the best learned amongst them must be destitute of somthing necessary to salvation and then what shall we say of the vnlearned who depend on their teachers But it is cleare that Catholikes learned and vnlearned who belieue the infallibility of the church may learne of Her and by tradition or the vnwritten word of God what is not particularly contained in his written word or Scripture 16. But here as in divers other occasions I must vnexpectedly yet necessarily make some stay Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 15. Pag 94. hath these words If I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receyved for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferr That if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Poynts we could not belieue Her in any one and so not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall At these words you take exception Pag 148. N. 36. and say By this Reason your Proselyts knowing you are not infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you yourself must not belieue yourself in any thing because you know that you are not infallible in all things Indeed if you had sayd we could not rationally belieue her for herowne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence which you proue in the next words alledged by me aboue For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing c 17. Answer You haue no reason to cavill at the words of Charity Maintayned which are very cleare and containe no more then what we haue heard yourself expressly teaching That an Authority subject to errour can be no firme Foundation of my belief in any thing And therfor He sayd expressly if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could not belieue her in any one Where you see he speakes of Infallibility which is destroyed by any one least errour and consequently cannot possibly be vnderstood otherwise than of believing the Church for her owne infallibility and Authority and being so vnderstood yourself profess willingly to grant the consequence which is the very same which Charity Maintained did inferr and even out of the very same reason which you did giue Besides he speakes expressly of Scripture and the Church in order to the proposing of Canonicall Scripture or believing other Points of Faith Fundamentall or not Fundamentall which require a Proposer vniversally infallible as yourself grant And so to answer your Objection no body can belieue me nor I can belieue my self for my owne authority in matters which require certainty and Infallibility as all Points of Faith doe vnless I were believed to be infallible in all things for the same reason which we haue heard yourself giue that an Authority subject â—o errour can be no firme FouÌ„dation of my belief in any thing But you say there is no coÌ„sequeÌ„ce in this Argument which you say is like to myne the dâ—vell is not infallible therfor if he sayes there is one God I cannot belieue him No Geometrician is infallible in all things therfor not in the things which he demonstrates N. N. is not infallible in all things therfor he may not belieue that he wrote a Booke entituled Charity Maintayned 18. Answer It is very true that I cannot
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
and fancyfull opinion hath engaged them vpon so great mistake as without doubt is hath yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas 66. Having thus answered and retorted the Objections wherin you seeme to triumph it is tyme to goe forward in proving the necessity of a Living infallible Judg. 67. Fourthly then I resume the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 67. There was no Scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord Holy Scripture was only among the people of Israël and yet there were Gentils indued with divine Faith as appeares in Job and his frends Wherfore during so many ages the Church alone was the instructor of the faithfull by meanes of Tradition The Church also of Christ was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles And after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and afterwardes some were doubted of c 68. To this Argument Pag 100. N. 123. You answer that it is just as if I should say Yorke is not in my way from Oxford to London therfor Bristell is Or a dog is not a horse Therfor he is a man As if God had no other wayes of revealing himself to men but only Scripture and an infallible Church wheras S. Paul telleth vs that men may know God by his workes and that they had the Law written in their harts Either of these ways might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture or Church To this purpose you cite also S. Chrysostome Isid Pelus and S. Paul Heb 1.1 69. You could not but see the weakness of this your Answer since you know that we speake not of extraordinary cases or concurrence but of the ordinary Meanes which God in his Holy Providence is wont to vse helping one man by the ministery of another in governing teaching preaching and the like and making good that truth of the Apostle sides ex auditu Faith comes by hearing Which only way of teaching and Tradition could serue to beget Faith for that tyme wherin no Scripture either of the Old or new Law was written Will you take vp the Apostle for saying Fides ex auditu and tell him that there be other Meanes beside hearing to beget Faith as the Law written in mens harts ād consideration of Gods creatures If this be not the state of the Question to what purpose do you through your whole Booke seeke to establish the sufficiency of Scripture alone and to destroy the necessity of the Churches Declarations and Traditions Since when all is done you may be told in your owne words That without necessity of Scripture or Church there are other Meanes to produce Faith and so all your Arguments will be like this Yorke is not in my way c A dog is not a horse c By this Meanes one may with the Old Heretikes Manichees Valentinians Cerdonists Marcionists and the new Libertines reject Scripture and not be subject to the letter but that they ought to follow the Spirit that quickeneth As likwise the Swenckfeldians rejected the wtitten word as the letter that killed contenting themselves with internall Spirit and might with you alledg that men had the Law written in their harts Yourself say Pag 15◠N. 38. The Churche is though not a certaine Foundation of proofe of my Faith yet a necessary Introduction to it Which you must vnderstand in the Ordinary way Vnless you haue a mynde to contradict your self and say That absolutely there are no other possible meanes to attaine Divine Faith than by the Seripture and the Church as a necessary introduction to it Yourself therfor must answer your owne slighting Instances For if in the ordinary course and as I may say without a kind of Miracle it were true that the way from Oxford to Londō were either Yorke or Bristoll or that a dog must be either a horse or aman were not these consequēces very Good But Yorke is not therfor Bristoll is But a dogg is not a horse therfor he is a man Now the Ordinary necessary meanes to produce Faith being either Scripture or the Church if we subsume But it is not Scripture which is evident for that tyme when there was no Scripture it clearly followes Therfor it is the Church which I Hope you will not deny to haue bene infallible in the Apostles tyme before Scripture was written and so your examples proue against none but yourself 70. We must still remember that Faith being the Gift of God we cannot belieue except in cases wherin God by his Eternall Providence hath decreed to affoard vs his particular Grace for that end which he is not wont to doe vnless the conditions by Him prescribed be performed Since therfor the Church hath bene appointed as the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith we ought not to promise ourselves the particular assistance of Grace necessary for exercising an Act of true Faith except vnder condition of hearing and submitting to that Church and not by consideration only of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by extraordinary enthusiasmes private spirits and the like If it had bene Gods holy pleasure to require of men to belieue only that God is and that he is a Rewarder of those that seeke Him or some other few Articles he would haue affoarded his sufficient supernaturall Grace to belieue those Points as also to loue Him repent of our sins and attaine salvation by believing those Pointes only for as much as would belong to Faith But de facto it falls out otherwise and we are to belieue many other Points as yourself pretend to teach Pag 133. N. 13. where you say That they who should belieue the sayd Article That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Heb 6.11 might be rewarded not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them first to Faith in Christ and so to salvation Which you endeavour to proue by the story of Cornelius Act 10. of whom you say Pag 134. If he had refused to bel euein Christ after the sufficient Revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to haue him belieue it he that was accepted before would not haue continued accepted still because one of the conditions which Christ requires for remission of sins and salvation from him is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue bene revealed by him This confirmes what I sayd that God doth not giue Grace to Belieue Hope and Loue except vpon those conditions which he appoints and requires which now is not only to belieue some one Article or to
this Objection or invention no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach or teach not with infallibility Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity For every one may say that not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false was confirmed by Miracles but those other Articles which he conceaves to be true And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture which he will say is not the word of God except for his opinions and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture even for those things which are contayned in it Neither will anie thing remayne certaine except a generall vnprofitable impracticable Notion that the Apostles taught and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God without knowing what they are in particular which would be nothing to the purpose and therfore as good as nothing 8. But yet dato non concesso That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points as are proved by Miracles c we say that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants as may be seene in Brierly Tract 2. Chap 3 Sect 7. subdiv 1. For example of Prayer to Saints out of S. Austine Civit L. 22. C. 8. Worship of Reliques out of S. Gregory Nazian S. Austine S. Hierom S. Basil Greg Turonen Theodoret the Image of Christ Reall presence Sacrifice of Christs Body Purgatory Prayer for the Dead The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse Holy water Lights in the Church Reservation of the Sacrament Holy Chrisme Adoration of the crosse Confession of sins to a Priest and extreme Vnction which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes of most creditable Authors and Holy Fathers wherof if any Protestant doubt he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule than examine the matter either by the 〈◊〉 of this Authour or of other Catholique Writers and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers in their Ser 〈…〉 Writers in their Bookes And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thefe considerations 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testifyed before any Protestant appeared in the world And therfore could not be fayned or recorded vpon any particular designe against them and their Heresyes 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles Whitaker cont Duraeum Lib 10. sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope to convert England through Gods hand as may be seene in Brierly Tract 1. Sect 5. and yet it is confessed by Protestants and is evident of itself that he converted vs to the Roman Faith But not to be long I referr the Reader to Brierly in the Index of whose Booke in the word Miracles he will find full satisfaction if he examine his allegations that in every Age since our Saviour Christ there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles both by the Professors of the Roman Faith and expressly in confirmation of it This I say and avouch for a certaine truth that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion and in proofe if it may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and that they cannot impugne vs but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity 9. To these two considerations let this Third be added that it is evidently delivered in Scripture Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion as being appointed by God for that end Exod 4.1 when Moyses sayd They will not belieue me nor heare my voice God gaue him the Gift of Miracles that they might belieue God had spoken to him 3. Reg 17. Vers 24. That woman whose sonne Elias had raised to life sayd Now in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God and the word of our Lord in thy mouth is true Christ Matt 11. V. 3.4.5 being asked whether he was the Messias proved himself to be such by the Miracle which he wrought The blind see the lame walke the lepers are made cleane the deafe heare the dead rise againe Which words signify that Miracles are not only effectuall but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine contrary to what was receyved before Yea Joan 5.36 Miracles are called a greater testimony thē John Marc vlt they preached every where our Lord working withall and consirming the Word with signes that followed 2. Cor 12. V. 12. The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience and wonders and mighty deeds Hebr. 2.4 God withall testifying by signes and wonders and divers Miracles But why do I vrge this Point You clearly confess it Pag 144. N. 31. in these words If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed therfore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine 10. Now put these Truths togeather Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion and particularly in confirmation of it Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church Faith and Religion What will follow but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation may say confidently with B. S. Austine Lib de Vtilit credendi Cap 17. Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church which with the acknowledgment of mankind hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops Heretikes in vaine barking about her and being condemned partly by the judgment of the people partly by the gravity of Councells partly by the Majesty of Miracles To which not to giue the first place is indeed either most great impiety or precipitous arrogancie 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church Miracles Succession of Bishops Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude Propagation Splendor and Glory of the Church promised by God ād foretold by the Prophets as may be seene Isaiae Chap 60. Vers 22. Chap 2. Vers 2. Chap 49. Vers 23. Chap. 54. Vers 2.3 Psalm 2.8 Dan 2.44 Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church which before Luther was none and being resolved not to embrace the Catholique Church wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled fell
to proue your assertion and yet he L. 3. expresly speaks of a fals report venturos esse Paulum MachariuÌ„ two Embassadours sent into Africa by the pious Catholique Emperour Constans qui interessent Sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur proferreat illâ— Imaginem of the Emperour quam primò in altari ponerent sic Sacrificium offerretur Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholiques that Sacrisice is due only to God I beseech the Reader to reade Baronius Ann. 348. N. 33.34 I wonder how you durst at that tyme when you wrote and published your Booke write that setting pictures in Churches and vpon Altars may yield just cause to separate from a Church at that tyme I say when pictures began to appeare in English Protestant Churches even in the vniversityes and still I haue fresh occasions of wondering that ever your Booke could be approved Do not Lutherans to this day set vp Images in their Churches The wickleffists and Hussites and diverse learned Protestants allow of Images yea and some defend even the worshipping of them as may be seene in the Triple Cord Chapt 17. Sect 4. as also learned Protestants confesse that diverse Fathers defended the vse and worship of Images and that Xenaias was condemned for being the first that stirred vp warr against Images which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius And Nicephorus Hist Eccles Lib 16. Cap 27. saith Xenaias iste primus ô audacem animam os impudens vocem illam evomuit Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse See of this whole matter Brierley Tract 1. Sect 3. Subdivis 12. Pag 124. And Tract 1. Sect 8. Subdivis 2. Pag 214. And Bellar Tom 2. de Reliq Sanct Lib 2. Cap 6. saith That Xenaias was a Persian and a barbarous fellow yea and a fugitiue 〈◊〉 and though he was not baptized yet faining himselfe a Christian he crept into a Bishoppricke And de notis Eccles Lib 4. Cap 9. demonstrates out of S. Epiphanius Lactantius S. Basil S. Greg Nyssen S. Paulinus S. Athanas and others That pictures were wont to be placed in Churches And S. Austine himselfe Lib 1. de consensu Evangelistar Cap 10. witnesseth that in his tyme in many places Christ was to be seene painted between the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul And Lib 22. cont Faust Cap 73. he saith the same of the History of Abraham going about to sacrifice his Son Now I beseech you tell me whether vse of Images in Churches be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church or no If it be then the Donatists might haue reason to depart from the Church seing pictures were set vp both in and before S. Austines tyme and while to vse your owne wordes the whole world of Christians was vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner If it were not why do you in this place object to vs the vse of Pictures and say that S. Austine to avoyd the objection of the Donatists that Catholikes set Pictures vpon the Altar answered only by denying that to be true which they objected as if they might haue beene excused from Schisme if indeed Pictures had beene set vpon the Altar And must Protestants depart from the Communion of all those their Brethren who at this day defend the lawfullness and practise the setting vp of Images in Churches In the meane time they who impugne the vse and worsh ip of Images may consider in Xenaias what Progenitors they haue And heere to shew how even by the light of naturall reason the respect or irreverence which is donne to the Image redounds to the Prototypon I cannot omit to set downe the words of Nazarius in panegir Constantini in detestation of the fact of Maxentius in defacing aÌ„d throwing downe the Images of Constantine Ecce enim proh dolor verba vix suppetunt venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio divini vultus litura deformis O manus impiae ô truces oculi ita non calligastis In quo lumen mundi obsucrabatis meritas ipsi poenas non imbibistis Nihil profecto gravius nihil miserius Roma doluisti What then shall we say of Iconoclasts or Image-breakers or Image-despisers not of mortall men as Constantine was then but of the Saviour of the world his Blessed Mother and Saints now glorious in Heauen O England reflect and repent 123. But not in this place only you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austine For Pag 259. N. 20. you say All that S. Austine saith is not true And I belieue heat of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to â—â—er-confute them transported him so farr is to vrge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true But it is no wonder if notorious Schismatiks as you are willingly take occasion to defend such famous Schismatikes as the Donatists were and to do it covertly and ex obliquo when you are ashamed to vnmaske yourselfe and proclaime it directly and openly And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently that S. Austine was clearly with vs in that place which Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 164. cited out of him as also in that other place which he cited Pag 165. wherof you say in your same Pag 259. N. 20. I cannot but wonder very much why he S. Austine should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches Visibility And Pag 119. N. 163. you say To S. Austine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderatly And Pag 168. N. 64. S. Austine when he was out of the heate of disputation confesses c. If any aske why Socinians are so averse from S. Austine I answer because in his workes he doth so often so zealously and so learnedly defend the Uisibility Perpetuity Amplitude Infallibility and Authority of Gods Church and with Arguments so direct against all our moderne Heretikes and Socinians in particular as it is impossible one can be a friend to that holy Doctour of Gods Church and an enemy to the Church of Rome A consideration of great comfort that we defend the same cause and suffer with a Person so holy and learned as Protestants when their owne cause is not touched are wont to preferr him before all other Ancient Fathers 124. Object 13. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag 107. proves That seing Protestants grant that the Church cannot erre in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferr that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one Point First because though she were supposed to erre yet the errour could not be Fundamentall nor destructiue of Faith
tyme are not you true blasphemers by whose Doctrine Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy And ò impiety our Saviour had blasphemed in making himselfe the Son of God if your horrible Doctrine were true 39. Secondly you answer that Dr. Potter mght say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed But then how could the Doctor say that the high Priest had a certaine priviledge from errour wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Is not that to be not only obeyed but of necessity believed which proceeds from an absolutly infallible derection Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed if his determination had beene repugnant to any Point of Faith as it might haue happened if he had no infallible direction Or will you now grant that one may and must dissemble in matters of Religion If you grant this last the ground for which you excuse Protestants from schisme falls to the ground 40. Thirdly you answer It is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the Priviledge which you chalenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truly say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doe otherwise This Answer is no more solid and no lesse repugnant to Dr. Potter than the former For he saith If any such promise from God to assiste the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for oracles without examination Now how could any mans decisions passe for oracles if the promise from God to assist him be not effectuall but that he may actually resist or reject such an assistance and so teach the contrary of that towards which he is assisted by God Therfore the Doctor must be vnderstood of such an assistance as it is certaine the party assisted will follow which is the very Priviledg which you say we chalenge though we say not that we are necessitated as you misreport vs for we know very well that there is a great difference betwixt an absolute necessity and infallibility of an effect as I haue declared hertofore And indeed to say that the high Priest had an infallible assistance which in fact might be resisted is to attribute no more to him than to every man for performing his Duty if he concurre with Gods inspirations and directions or sufficient Grace Yourselfe say N. 148. That the whole depositum of truth was commtted to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I thinke will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and euery Church Which words confirme my saying that by your interpretation the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest than to every man which yet we haue seene to be directly against his words and meaning and that he ascribes that to the high Priest which he denyes to the Pope to whom he professes that if he granted as much as God promised to the high Priest his the Popes decisions might justly passe for oracles without examination Which surely is more than is granted to every man neither would either he or you deny to the Pope that sufficient Grace and assistance to performe his Duty which Assistance you grant to every man To your example of the wise men I answer if God did efficaciously decree that the birth of our B. Saviour should be published to the world by their eye-witnessing he gaue them such direction as in his infinite wisdome he saw they would follow de facto though without either constraint or necessity as you would not deny to be very possible if you had beene versed in solide Divinity or read and vnderstood our Catholike Authors vpon the matter of Grace 41. All that you haue from the N. 125. till 136. inclusiuè is answered already Only I will say that we do not proue the Church to be infallible because so it seemes to vs most fitt as you doe who rely meerly vpon humane discourse but seing the Question between vs is whether the Church or Scripture alone be the infallible Rule or Judge of Faith if we proue that the Church is vsefull for such a purpose and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule it followes that not the Scripture can be such a Rule but that the Church must be a Judge of Controversyes Thus all your roving arguments through diverse numbers vanish into nothing 42. In the end of your N. 126. you say that Charity Maintayned inferred vainly that with monthes and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered Her Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversyes which yet is a true consequence if as Charity Maintayned expressly sayes as the Church by little and litle received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility Protestants grant that after the canon was perfited infallibility ceased to be in the Church and why must they not say that as Bookes of Scripture were written so she by degrees lost her infallibility as being needeless for those points which grewe to be evidently declared by those Bookes For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written the Church wholy lost infallibility and heere enters your conceypt that to him to whom the way is cleare a guide is not necessary Therfore the evidence of Scripture made infallibility in the Church vnnecessary 43. In your N. 137. 138. you dissemble the force of Ch Ma his Argument which is the Church was once indued with infallibility therfore you cannot affirme that she lost it without alledging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion which with you who rely vpon Scripture alone ought to be a convincing Argument Your fond instance about the King of Sweden with the rest of that N. 138. hath beene answered already 44. I need say little to your N. 139.140 having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls And to your words N. 140. directed to Charity Maintayned For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility in some Points and not in others that is a wild notion of your owne which we haue nothing to doe with I Answer if you meane to defende the cause of Potter or other Protestants and not of Socininians only you must of necessity haue to doe with that wild notion For seing it must be granted that before Scripture was written the Church was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall because otherwise we
which we receiue by Tradition Scripture is vnnecessary as you speak of Tradition and so is not to be the only Rule of Faith nor is there any necessity at all that it containe evidently the whole Tradition as you inferr which is most evidently false seing S. John writes that the world could not containe all that might haue been written of our B. Saviour To say nothing that one Tradition and that the chiefest of all other in the account of Protestants is that Scripture is the Word of God which you profess cannot be proved by Scripture itselfe 55. And now we haue a cleare Answer to your Objection out of S. Irenaeus as if he had taught that Scripture containes evidently the whole Tradition You cite not the place But it is Lib 3. Cap 1. where he saith We haue received the disposition of our salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospell came vnto vs. VVhich Gospell truly the Apostles first preached and afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to vs to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith These words you alledge and in your margent cite Bellarmine de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 11. answering them much to your advantage as you pretend But you dissemble his first Answer which demonstrates that S. Irenaeus doth in no wise favour your pretence Bellarmine in Answer to Kemnitius who made this same Objection out of S. Irenaeus saith Respondeo Irenaeum non dicere nihil aliud Apostolos predicavisse quà m quod scripserunt sed solùm scripsisse Evangelium quod antea praedicaverant quod est verum non contra nos I answer that S. Irenaeus doth not assirme the Apostles to haue preached nothing els beside that which they wrote but only that they wrote the Gospell which they had preached before which is true and not against vs. Now how can you impugne this Answer of Bellarmine otherwise than by begging the question and supposing that the Evangelists cannot be sayd to haue Written the Gospell vnless they wrote all that the Apostlès preached Which you know we deny and the contrary is evident out of S. John as I sayd even now and hertofore proved at large Though it be also most true that they wrote all that was necessary to be written but then you must proue that all that was necessary to be believed or was preached was necessary to be written and not delivered by Gods vnwritten Word or Tradition as it was before any Scripture was extant which you will never be able to proue out of S. Irenaeus or Holy Scripture This Answer to the words of S. Irenaeus is confirmed out of the same Chapter where he saith Marcus Discipulus c Marke the Disciple and interpreter of Peter did also deliver to vs in writing those things which were preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul set downe in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him S. Paul And afterward John the Disciple of our Lord and who leaned vpon his brest did also write the Gospell while he remained at Ephesus in Asia Now it cannot be doubted but that S. Marke had many things from the mouth of S. Peter and S. Luke from S. Paul which they did not set downe in writing and yet you see it is sayd he S. Luke wrote Evangelium the Gospell and for S. John he professes that our Saviour did innumerable things which are not written and yet it is sayd edidi Evangelium he set forth the Gospell and the Apostles delivered interpretations of Scripture to the first Christians which are not set downe in writing as yourselfe confesse If any say S. Irenaeus calls Scripture the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith I answer Those words cannot be referred Scripturis to the Scriptures which is S. Irenaeus his word but to the Gospell as appeares by the Word futurum fundamentum columnam Fidei nostrae futurum seing we cannot say with congruity of Grammar Scripturis futurum ād therfore it must be referred to Evangelium Gospell Evangelium columnam Fidei nostrae futurum which Gospell is of a larger extent than Scripture though no man denyes Scripture to be in a good sense the Pillar and Fundation of truth Of the second answer which Bellar gives I haue spokē largely Chap 2. and shewed how egregiously you abuse him against his direct intention meaning and words 56 Thus you haue an answer to your N. 145. Where you say that at the most we can inferr from S. Irenaeus but only a suppositiue necessity of having an infallble Guide and that grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity herof and to them who haue and belieue the Scripture which is your assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary The Answer I say to this is given already for as I sayd S. Irenaeus speakes not by way of discourse or conjecture or as it were of prophecy what God would haue done in case the Apostles had left no Scriptures but he speakes of Tradition really existing wherby the want of Scripture might haue beene supplyed and which he expressly saith the Apostles delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches Yea he affirmes that de facto many Nations were converted by yielding assent to it and so de facto there was in that and will be in the like case a necessity of an infallible Tradition and a Living Guide And although that or the like occasion had not happened yet the thing being contingent Yea and in your particular Doctrine the Scripture being not a materiall Object of Faith which all are bound to belieue which in effect is as if it were not at all the Church could not be to seeke whensoever the occasion might happen but must be indued with a permanent Authority and infallibility for all events as it is contingent that for example theft be committed in a Commonwealth yet there is not only a suppositiue but an absolute necessity that the Commonwealth be indued with an absolute constant power to punish theeves c Neither ought you to say absolutly for as much as belongs to our question that it is a false supposition to suppose that Scripture had not beene written For besides that the Church of Christ was in being some yeares before any part of the New Testament was written it is all one that there be no Scripture and that we haue it not or haue no reason to belieue it yea or may reject it as you saie seing therfore many Nations were saved without knowledge of Scripture or any obligation to know it as S. Irenaevs supposes it alone is in order to vse and vs as if it had never beene written and so as I sayd inferrs an absolute and not only a suppositiue necessity of some Living Guide And this it seemes you did perceiue when you sayd that Charity Maintayned did not well to inferr an absolute necessity of a
with them if they kept their station vnto the very end of their lives Behold an if a condition If they kept their station which if it be in their free will not to doe as your if supposes it to be then according to your Divinity they might faile and all Promise made to them proue ineffectuall neither can we be certaine that de facto they haue not failed and fallen into errour in their preaching and writing Scripture Nay do you not teach and labour to proue that the Apostles even after the receiving of the Holy Spirit which you confess was promised to abide with them for ever that is say you for their whole life and that they should never want the spirits assistance vnto the very end of their lives did erre in a command clearely revealed to them about preaching the Gospell to Gentills How then was that Promise performed if it were absolute And if only conditionall you grant no more to them than to any other neither can we be certaine that they haue not erred in other things as you say they erred in that Your alledging some Texts to proue that the word ever may be taken for the whole time of a mans life is not to any purpose vnless you had also proved that it is so vnderstood in the place of which we speak Joan 14.16 And seing even by this example the same words are capable of different senses and that Protestants cannot possibly giue any Rule which Text is to be interpreted by what others we must conclude that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith 84. But now in your N. 75. we find threates that you will work wonders and that we may not be so much overseene as to pass them without due reflection you say to Charity Maintayned This will seeme strang newes to you at first hearing and not farre from a prodigy But it is not strang that heere you doe that which you doe in divers other occasions that is impeach the infallibility of the Apostles and consequently depriue their preaching and writing and all Christian Religion of all certainty though I grant it to be very strang and a prodigy that notwithstanding this you will pretend to be a Christian and that your Book is approved by and published among Christians For besides what I noted even now about your conditionall promise made to the Apostles If they kept theyr station heere you declare clearely and at large that the Promise of which S. John speakes was appropriated to the Apostles as you speak and that it is not absolute but as you expressly say most clearly and expressly conditionall being both in the words before restrained to those only that loue God and keepe his commandements And in the words after flatly denyed to all whom the scriptures stile by the name of the world that is as the very Antithesis giues vs plainly to vnderstand to all wicked and wordly men Behold the place entire as it is set downe in your owne Bible If you loue me keepe my commandements and I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paracleâ—e that he may abide with your for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue And then speaking of the Pope you say We can haue no certainty that the Spirit of Truth is promised to him but vpon supposall that he performes the condition where vnto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expressly limited viz. That he loue God and keep his commandements and of this not knowing the Popes heart we can haue no certainty at all Doth not this interpretation and discourse clearly declare that we can haue no certainty of the Apostles infallibility because not knowing their hearts we can haue no certainty at all that when they preached and wrote they did loue God and keepe his commandements Besides in the doctrine of Protestants we cannot be certaine by certainty of Faith that the Apostles kept the commandemeÌ„ts except first we belieue Scripture and yet we caÌ„not belieue Scripture itself except first we belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to haue kept that condition of keeping the commandements Therfore we must belieue Scripture before we belieue the Apostles to keepe the commandements and be infallible and we must belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to keepe the commandements before we belieue Scripture which is an inextricable Circle and a contradiction implying finally that we belieue Scripture for it self which you confess no wise man will affirme and that the belief of Scripture should be cause of the belief of Scripture and the same thing be necessary to the first production of it self Wherefore you must either renounce this Interpretation of a conditionall Promise made yea as you expresly affirme Appropriated to the Apostles or els bid Scripture and all Christianity fare well And so you cannot haue certainty of this particular that God requires the saied condition of loue and Obedience 85. But to answer directly I say you miscite the words of S. John while you distinguish only by a comma If you loue me keepe my commandements from the following words And I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paraclete whereas both in our and in the Protestants English Bible they are distinct Sections or Verses thus N. 15 If you loue me keep my commandements And then N. 16. And I will aâ—k the Father and he will giue you an other Paraelete Where it appeares that the condition is not If you loue me I will ask the Father and he will giue you c. as you set it downe and there vpon affirme that the Promise is restrayned to those only that loue God and keep his commandements but the condition or rather Assirmation or Consequence is this If you loue me keep my commandements And so the sense is very plain and perfect and the condition is terminated in the same N. 15. And that these words If you loue me keep my commandements render a perfect sense is manifest of it self and by the like Texts of Scripture as in the same Evangelist Cap. 15. N. 14. You are my friends if you doe the things that I command you and V. 10. If you keep my precepts you shall abide in my Loue. As contrarily the holy Ghost is promised absolutely in this C 14. V. 26. The Paraclete the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things And in the argument prefixed before this Chapter in the Protestants English Bible printed Ann 1622. it is sayed Christ N. 15. requireth loue and Obedience 16. Promiseth the Holy Ghost the comforter without expressing any dependance of the saied Promise V. 15. vpon loue and obedience V. 16. As also Joan 16.13 which Text is alledged both by Charity Maintayned and Dr. Potter it is saied without any condition when he the Spirit of Truth commeth he shall teach you all Truth And Matth 16.18 these words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her which both
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a
his principles must be resolved into Reason just as I sayd hertofore that although he seeme in words to extoll Scripture as a Perfect Rule the only ground of our Faith containing evidently all necessary points and the like yet indeed by his wicked Tenets concerning it he deprives it of all authority and makes it vnable to deliver vs any thing with absolute certainty A just judgment of God to bring provd men to confusion and intrap them in their owne snares and proue their wisdome to be but foolishness even by crossing and contradicting themselves and overthrowing the maine foundations of their pretended friends or clients as this man destroyes the maine ground of Socinians Reason and the only Rule of Protestants Scripture If contradictions may be true you or any other may write Books with much security and without feare of being confuted For when you are brought to the hard exigent of acknowledging contradictions your answer will be that one may assent to contradictions and so one by all his paines taken to confute you shall only proue what you grant and seeke to proue And in particular it will be impossible to confute the Reasons whereby you endeavour to proue this your assertion because whatsoever is alledged can inferr no greater absurdity than that which you grant that contradictoryes may be true And on the other side it will not be in your power to confute any man seing the most you can doe will be to driue him vnto contradictions which he being taught by you will say is no absurdity and so all will be at a stand and become silent disputants And it may be true that euen this your assertion contradictions may be true may be saied both to be true and fals or not true And by what Logick can you or any who holds this Doctrine be confuted Not ostensiuè as Logicians speak because this is primum principium of all other nor deducendo ad absurdum or impossible seing the greatest absurdity that one can be brought to is that which you grant And there fore Christianity maintayned Pag 62. saied truly that your Reasons if you hold them for good must proue the contrary of that which you intended that is your proofes that we may assent to contradictions must suppose that we cannot assent to them which if you do not suppose you will never be able to convince any man in any thing Besides if your Reasons proue any thing they proue that one may assent to formall contradictions which yet you pretend to deny and therefore even in this respect you in fact hold contradictions But let vs heare your Reasons 22. Your first is this Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue But there haue bene some who haue believen and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristoile disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue contradictions 23. Answer 1. We haue heard you saying N. 47. Perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction Now I ask whether those men whom Aristotle impugnes were in their right wits or no If they were Then your Argument if it proue any thing proves that it is possible for men in their right wits to belieue contradictions expressed in termes for Aristotle speaks of such cōtradictions And then how do you say It is difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction Seing in our case it is all one to be difficult and impossible since that which the light of reason tells vs is that it is impossible and not only difficult and if you deny it to be impossible you will not be able to proue it difficult neither did they whom Aristotle impugnes make any distinction between being difficult and impossible So that this parte of the Answer to my Dilemma which supposes those men to be in their wits doth indeed put them our of their wits because according to your owne doctrine they could not assent to contradictions if they were in their wits But if those men were out of their wits surely you ought not to take mad men for Maisters in Metaphysicks which is no better than to suborne sleeping witnesses as the Jewes did against our Saviours resurrection and as you doe to proue your chimericall Assertion 2. If you belieue that one may belieue contradictions how will you proue this consequence some haue believed and taught that contradictions might be true Therfore he may and must belieue contradictions If you say It implies contradictions that one should belieue a thing to be true and yet that it is impossible for him to assent to it it will be answered what then Do you not suppose and teach even this which in this answer you take to be absurd that one may assent to contradictions will you haue it possible that one may assent to contradictions when you affirme it and not possible when an other sayes the same 3. If any saied and believed that contradictions might be true they erred against the first and most knowne Principle of nature and so as you inferr Contradictoryes were believed to be true therfore they might be believed to be true I take the contrary truth It is knowne by the light of nature that contradictories cannot be true and infer Therefore it is impossible to belieue them being conceived to be Contradictoryes if men be in theyr wits If you conceyue Aristotle did sufficiently confute those men why do you alledg theyr confessed fals doctrine to proue that which you pretend to be true Certainly this is neither an honest kind of proceeding nor a good way of proving If your opinion be that he did not refell them effectually without doubt it had bene a Work beseeming your wit to haue confuted Aristotle and defended those men whose doctrine vnless you maintaye your Argument taken from theyr conceypts can be of no force at all Neither had it bene needfull for you to haue studied what Title had bene fittest for such a Work For you might haue remembred that Simon Magus is saied to haue written Books which he called Contradictorios Uid Baron Ann. Christi 35. N. 23. A Title most agreable to your genius both because in this place you expressly defend Contradictions and in regard that through your whole Booke you do indeed fall into them more frequently than I could haue imagined Yet as for those men whom Aristotle impugnes it is one thing that they saied they believed Contradictions might be true and an other that indeed they could belieue them if they were in their right wits and vnderstood what were true contradictories In which respect Aristotle Metaphys Lib 4. Cap 3. saieth Nonenim necesse est quaecumque quis dicat ea etiam putare But this is not the first tyme that you confound the first and second operation of the
when one allthings considered believes one parte only he is so farre from believing things which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions that he is certaine not to belieue contradictions because he sees that he believes one parte only of the contradiction and rejects the other and is also certaine that as I saied contradiction must involue two parts And heere I would demand wherher you belieue indeed that contradictions can be true If you belieue they may be true then Christian Religion may teach Scripture may contayne God may reveale aÌ„d must assent to contradictions seing he cannot but assent to all truth And are not these blasphemyes If you belieue contradictions cannot be true how will you haue it possible for any man to belieue that which he believes not to be true You saied in your first Reason Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue And certainly I may better say Whatsoever a man believes nor to be true that he neither may nor can belieue and therfore seing all men in their right wits belieue that contradictoryes cannot be true it is impossible that they should belieue them But let vs procede to your 28. Fourth Reason Some men say you may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not belieue and grant some true principle that contradicts his errour For nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men know any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed on by both parts Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certaine that the same man at the same time may belieue contradictions 29. Answer First If it were lawfull to vse such an expressioÌ„ it might well be saied that it seemes fatall for you to be at variance with your self For I pray you suppose one to belieue that contradictions may be true How will you perswade him out of his errour By shewing him that he grants some true principle that contradicts his errour But if contradictories may be true and one may at the same time belieue them nothing will force him to leaue his errour though it appeare to contradict some principle which he grants because he may belieue both his supposed errous and that principle to betrue yea he neede not beleeue it to be an errour though it contradict some true principle seing both parts of contradictories may be true Chuse which you please May contradictories be true or be believed or no If they may then this Reason of yours proves nothing as I haue shewed Can they not be true nor be believed then to make good this Reason you denie that for which you alledg it and must say that one cannot at the same tyme belieue contradictions and that if he could do so this Reason were of no force A new kind of Logick to bring a Reason to proue a Conclusion which must be fals if the Reason or Proofe for it be of any force That is â—o proue that contradictions may be believed you vse an Argument which to haue any force must suppose they may not be believed How will you driue one from that which he believes by proposing a principle which even by your doctrine he conceyves may consist with that from which you would driue him So still that which I saied is true That your Arguments if they proue any thing must suppose or proue the direct contrary of that which you intend to proue by them and so not help but overthrow yourself Secondly If your Reason be of any force it can only proue that by ignorance one may hold contradictoryes which was needless to be proved it being a thing which no man denyes And then you must either acknowledg a contradiction or els acknowledg that you intended to proue that one may assent to express and knowen contradictions but that your Reason proved not so much as you did meane to proue by it For if your purpose was only to proue a possibility of assenting to contradictoryes not knowen to be such you contradict yourself in saying N. 47. Men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so seing it is evident in case of probable or invincible ignorance a man may and ought to belieue them and it were vnreasonable to doe that which all the Reasons that he can consider tell him that he is to doe as he does and that it is not in his power to discover his errour by any reasons that can represent themselves to his vnderstanding It cannot be denyed but in that case he proceedes prudently and safely and therefore not vnreasonably but as he should doe and yourself confess that men may innocently as you speak be ignorant of the contradiction Yourself tell vs in your next Reason that we cannot without extream madnesse and vncharitablenesse deny that you belieue the Bible and yet we belieue that some part of your doctrine contradicts the Bible Now seing this last is certaine by evident experience of Protestants who interpret Scripture so as what one affirmes an other denyes to be the meaning thereof you must either grant that men may rationally belieue that kind of contradictions of which we speak or els with extreame madness and vncharitableness say that no Protestant who contradicts an other about the sense of Scripture does as he should doe but is vnreasonable in so doing Chuse then I returne to say whether you will say your meaning was in this fourth Reason to speak of express contradictions and confess that it comes not home to that purpose or els that you spoke not of such express contradictions and confess that in this N. 46. you contradict your N. 47. wherein you say One should not belieue contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so 30. Your Fifth Reason we haue mentioned already That Protestants belieue all that is in the Bible to be true and yet we say that they belieue divers Doctrines against the Bible and consequently that they belieue Contradictions But seing this Reason if it proue any thing proues only that men may assent to Contradictions not knowen to be such it is already answered and confuted and demonstrated to be guilty either of insufficiency or to subsist by a manifest Contradiction to that for which you alledg it as I aÌ„swered to your fourth ReasoÌ„ 31. Your Sixth Reason is equally full of impiety malice and ignorance and is answered in a word That we absolutely are certaine there is implied no Contradiction in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore it cannot serue to proue that men may belieue Contradictions And seing it speaks only of Contradictions not expressed in termes but only involved it is liable to all the same exceptions which I haue declared against your Fourth and Fifth Reason Neither can any expect or even indure that heere I should write a Book of Transubstantiation You know learned Catholike Writers haue answered all
schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundamētall ād not fūdamēntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God ād so in fact all points being fūdamētall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue givē a greater C Ma sayd that Luther ād his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religiō some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation ād not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written
he call his Faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet further Ibid. Lib. 3. know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise than it hath once bene preached 24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer First that he writing to Damasus a Pope might be apt to write over-truths An answer not deserving a confutation Secondly you say S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman But this hath bene answered heretofore neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church Pope or Councell excluding that Epistle from the Canon or rejecting any Book of the old or New Testament which was afterward admitted Thirdly you ask How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections when you fly to so farre fetched evasions and your proceeding is inexcusable in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. Part. 2. Chap. 3 N. 30. gives out of Baronius Ann. 357. and Bellarmine De Roman Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. who affirme that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme or any error against Faith but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact and even greater Protestants than you doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra any errour against Faith but only that de facto by force of feare theates banishment and other sufferings he did subscribe against S. Athanasius as S. Peter denied our Saviour without forfeit of his Faith though he failed in the profession thereof our Saviour having saied Oravi pro te Petre vtnon deficiat Fides tua or as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul even after the comming of the holy Ghost and yet I hope you will not denie but that one might haue saied I am in the coÌ„munio of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built vpoÌ„ tkat Rock whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth and the same I say S. Hierom might haue saied of and to Liberius defining as Pope not as failing in fact as a man and we see that both before and after that forced act he was constaÌ„t not only in the true faith which he never lost but also in the profession thereof and what he did by force and feare must no more be imputed to him as Pope than a confession extorted by torture can be of force without a voluntary ratification Our Saviour saied men were to obey the words of the Scribes aÌ„d Pharisees not their deeds Is it not a doctrine of your owne Pag. 144 N. 31. that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain in no part of that which they delivered â—onstantly And certaine it is that Liberius did not make good his subscription if ever he subscribed to an errour but revoked it assoone as he was at liberty and as I may say taken of the Torture as alwaies before he had defended the Catholique truth If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls who will therefore say that he believed or defined Idolary to be Lawfull And vniversally if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions whosoever committs theft murther or any other sinne against the commandements must be condemned for an Heretique as believing theft to be Lawfull Finally if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms ArgumeÌ„t to cosist in this that Damasus was in the right only actually and accidentally the Saint had begged the Question and proved his owne Doctrine to be true because Damasus held with him and that which Damasus held de facto was true though Damasus might erre as other Bishops might whereas it is cleare that S. Hierom as his words express grounds himself vpon that firme and stable Rock of which our Saviour saied Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you â—llie N. 24. for interpreting the words of S. Ambros. 25. For your N. 25.26.27 I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31. whereof see also Bellarm in De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7. where this matter is handled at large And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian being disinterressed and delivering a generall Doctrine and prescriptions against all Heretiques and S. Cyprian speaking in a particular point wherein he was ingaged and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour condemned by the whole Church against the Donatists namely the rebaptization of such as had bene baptized by Heretiques and by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as Charity Maint in the place cited even now shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader in not making a difference betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen and a Definition of Faith which difference you might haue learned in that very place which you cite out of Bellarmine and we haue now alledged In fine all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian seing he was in an errour against Faith and therefore could be excused only by ignorance or pardoned by repentance In vaine N. 26. you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse but should haue sayd to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse But this you say without proofe against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul not of Fidelity and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness or errour contrarie to Faith not of perfidiousness contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity For what congruity is there in this speach The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle therefore perfidiousness or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them as if all who belieue aright must also besincere and vpright honest men Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare that if their Faith be true errour against Faith or falshood cannot be approved by them You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretiques if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome to be infallible for matters of Faith
words 22. Your N. 30.31.32.33.34 doe only demonstrate that you vndertake to declare the Doctine of Protestants about good works repentance justification c without any commission from them which you could not but see and therfore are forced N. 33. to say If this doctrine about justification by Faith onlie be otherwise expounded then I haue here expounded I will not vnder take the justificatioÌ„ of it And therefore you had no reason to affirme that C Ma spoke without sense in saying that according to the rigid Calvinists Faith is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weake and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For seing that Faith which Calvinists hold to be justifying can never be lost if once it be gotten this Disjunctiue must needs be evidently true either it cannot be gotten or if it be gotten it cannot be lost That which you vntimely talk heere of the subject wherein God hath placed the Authority of defining matters of Faith hath bene answered already as much as this Work can permit without descending to particular Controversies against the purpose and Intention of Cha Ma who yet Part 2. Chap 5. N. 15.16.21 answers all the particular Authorities of Catholiques which Potter objects about this matter and shewes his ill dealing in alledging them But this is not the first tyme that you dissemble what Cha Ma delivers in his second Part though yet you make vse of it when it may serue your turne which certainlie is no just kind of proceding But to returne to your defense of other chiefe Protestants whereas Cha Ma saied heere N. 12. out of his Chap 3. N. 19. that justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants avouched to be the soule of the Church the principall Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest yet you say heere N. 32. For my part I doe hartly wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should euer preach or print this Dostrine that Faith alone justifies vnless he joynes these together with it that vniversall obedience is necessary to salvatioÌ„ if the Commandments cannot be kept how can the observation of them or vniversall obedience be taught as necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law mark heere how impertinently Protestants apply the Authority of S. Paul against justification by works seing Mr. Chillingworth declares that he speaks of the works of the law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them So diffideÌ„t are you of this soule of the Church this principall origen of salvation of Protestants Your last lines are so obscure and confused that after consideration by myself aÌ„d with others I can drawe from them nothing but non-sense and for such I must leaue them Concerning our greater safety I haue touched in the Preface to the Reader some Points taken from your express doctrine and words which heere I judge needles to repeete 23. For Conclusion of my Book I disposed myself to giue a particular Answer to the conclusion of yours wherein you are not ashamed to say that you are well assured that Ch. Ma. had in his hands your Book twelue-months before it was published which vpon my certaine knowledg is must vntrue But vpon carefull examination thereof I finde that labour to be needless You would make the Reader belieue that Ch Ma omitted to answer some materiall points of Dr. Potters Book and that you had observed all the Directions which were given in that litle Treatise intituled A Direction be to observed by N. N. If he meane to proceede in answering the Book intituled Mercy and Truth or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques c But both these affirmations are fully and truly answered by an absolute deniall that either of them is true as any man will judge who shall consider the Answer of Cha Ma to Dr. Potter and this my answer to you And as for the latter in particular How can it be denied that you procede in a destructiue way which in that Direction you were warned to avoide who deny Christian Religion to be infallibly true And how can Christian Faith be supernaturall if it be only a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises And I wonder with what face you can say heere § And lastly that thefe archer of all hearts knowes that you had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm the truth of the divine and infallible Religion of our dearest lord and Saviour Christ Iesus seing you haue endeavoured nothing more through your whole Book than to proue that Christian Religion is not infallible That you haue contradicted Dr. Potter hath bene shewed heretofore in severall occasions And the same I meane that you haue not observed those Directions might be demonstrated in everie particular if it were worth the labour but for that Direction which was not to contradict yourself you haue trangressed it so notoriously as I should never haue believed if my owne experience had not convinced me thereof which made it as hard to giue an answer to your Book as it is to make on coate fitting the moone in all its changes which is your owne similitude which I confess was one of the greatest difficultyes in answering to find you so various obscure contrary and contradicting yourself accordingly as you were prest with different Arguments that I could not but often say with much Truth Quis teneat vultus mutantem Protea Nodus FINIS INDEX In which Pr. signifieth the Preface I. the Introduction C. the Chapter N. the Number P. the Page A. Absolution validly given by an Heretique if he be a true Priest and hath intention to administer the Sacrament C. 4. N. 42. P. 377. 578. Absurdityes in Catholique Faith falsely supposed by I hil c. 1. n. 76. p. 90. but proved by his owne tenets to be truly in his Faith N. 77. and p. 97. n. 84 seq Accidents dispose to effects more noble then themselves yea held by many to be reall â—uses of substances c 1. n 79. 80. p 94. 95. Acts proper to necessary Powers must needs be produced if the meanes to worke be compleate but free Powers may with compleate meanes suspend the act c 11. n 65. p 694. seq The essence of acts ignorantly discoursed of by I hil c 12. n 21. p 721. seq Advertisements for whomsoever shall vndertake to answere this Booke not to follow I hil his stepps in commencing new controversies Pr. n. 5. 6. p. 2. 3. If the Apostles could erre in any poynt of Religion they can be certainly believed in none c. 2. n. 95. p. 200. c. 12. n. 47. p. 742. alibi Out Saviours Words to them as
with Pelagius and free-will with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 seq Many hideous Tenets of his concerninge Faith discovered in all the first Chap He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sinne I. n. â—1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certaine then humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to belieue Scripture to be of Divine authority c. 2 n. 58 p. 159 alibi And it is evident in his grounds that God is no more to be believed then man if God give no better reason for what he sayes then man doth c. 1 n. 101 p. 108 That it is no matter if controversies concerning truths only profitable be continued and increased c. 2 n. 78 p. 182 That Scripture is no materiall object of Taith and that there is no obligation to beleeue it c. 3 n. 4 p. 281 and in other numb before and after Also c. 13 n. 39 p 818 That the Apostles after the cominge of the Holy Ghost erred in a point clearly revealed c. 7 n. 24 p. 472. 473 c. 3 n. 28 p. 298 He brings all Christian Faith to a humane invention c. 3 n. 83 p. 344 seq He puts such a contrition for salvation which a sinner cannot possbly haue at the hower of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviours promise that the Holy Ghost should remaine with the Apostles was not for their successoâ—s but only for the terme of their lives nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives VViclifs Heresie n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true with many horrid impietyes which strike at the roote of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 seq His insolent treatie of S. Tho of Aqui c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little considence in his owne Religion c. 16 n. 11 p. 939 His absurdity in contending that it is all one to say Though such a thing be so and though it were so n. 21 p. 945 946 His impudent callinge God to witnesse of his sincerity in writing his Booke to confirme the infallible Religion of our Saviour which he strives in his whole Booke to prooue fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948 Many other of his pernitious Tenets appeare in this whole Booke and his errours against Scripture toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently shewed that no particular place needs be cited The like is of his continuall begging the question or asking impertinently in place of proofe why may not such athing be with out any proofe Church To follow the Church is to follow Scripture which recommends the Church vnto vs c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceaved in interpreting Scripture Ibid Her vniversall practice is to be held an Apostolicall Tradition Ibid Many things are to be done for her authority without expresse Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sinnes of Manners but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 seq Vnity necessary to be members of one Church must be in all points sufficieÌ„tly proposed sundamentall or not fundamentall n. 74 p. 505 seq And in externall Communion Ibid which in divine service is vnlawfull with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leaue the Church and to Ieaue her externall Communion nor can any separate from her and remaine a part of her n. 73 p. 503 sequen He not only separates from the Church who separates from her externall Communion but alsomorally from himselfe n. 110 p. 532 seq No Church no Schisme n. 93.94 p. 523 If the Church be infallible in fundamentalls she must also be so in vnfundamentalls n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any poynt sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remaine a Church with any such errour n. 6 p. 635 seq She beinge infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require and is for them eudued with infallibility n. 11 p. 639 640 Her fallibility for one age discredits her for all c. 11 n. 26 p. 667 The true Church easy to be found by her notes in every age n. 31 p. 670 seq Many disparityes between the Church and the Synagogue n. 38 p. 674 The Church having approved Scripture for Canonicall proves out of it particular truths concerning her selfe n. 67 p. 697 In what sense she is an infallible keeper of Scripture c. 3 n. 52 p. 320 seq She never questioned or rejected any thing of Scripture which the had once defined for Canonicall n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofes before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 toto c. 5 She is viâ ordinariâ the meanes for matter of Religion c. 4 n. 67 p. 396 seq The Church was before Scripture Ibid passim alibi She was never devested of infallibility c. 4 n. 72 p. 399 sequen She cannot perish nor be invisible nor deceaved in points belonging to Salvation She is the ordinary meanes to teach and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 sequen Infallibility granted her for all points belonging to Religion but nor for curiosityes n. 95 p. 418 sequen She vsed disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42â— She essentially requires vnity in Faith and in in the externall worship of God Divivision from her in Faith is heresie in externall communion is Schisme c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into errour all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is indued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mysticall body for every degree for every particular person c. 2 n. 2 p. 122 seq She is recommended by him for the interpretation of Scripture and who refuses it resists him n. 28 p. 124 She must haue infallible meanes to declare with certainty things though only profitable n. 73 p. 176 seq It would be damnable in her to neglect truths only profitable n. 77 p. 181 If she should out of negligence mistake or be ignorant her errour would be damnable c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 seq She is extensiuè of equall infallibility with the Apostles but not intensiuè i.e. in the manner num 35 p. 731 seq If her authority be câ—â—taine for Scripture it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes n. 52 p. 746 She being once prooved to be infallible may giue irrefragable testimony of her owne infallibility n. 107 p. 787 How the Church is alwayes visible c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 VVhat right and power she had and for many ages had bene peaceable possessed of at Luthers cominge n.
Constantinople and the Greek Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receyved in Africa as Canonicall by the Decree of the African Councell And therfor you were ill advised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M or Magnus the great wheras he was no Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those commentaryes vpon Job Thus farr Cha Ma 55. As for your demand whether before Sixtus Quintus his tyme our Church had a defined canon of scripture or not I Answer We had the same Canon then which we haue novv and vvhich the sacred councell of Trent hath set dovvne Sess 4. decreto de Canonicis scripturis The church had alvvayes the same Canon that is she never declared by any decree any bookes to be Apocryphall at one tyme vvhich she admitted for Canonicall at another One Councell may omitt or not mention some booke vvhich another specifyes but can never declare it to be Apocryphall or not canonicall to vvhich contrariety only private persons are obnoxious But yet although our church had not set do vvne the canō of scripture it is very improper for you to object then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was scripture and what was not For do not Protestāts till this day disagree about the canon of scripture and so are not able to define vvhat is scripture and what is not yea they positively deny some books to be scripture vvhich others of them affirme to be Canonicall It is true I cannot properly say that for 1500 yeares they haue not defined any canon because they haue no such ancient being But I must say although they should last 1500 millions of yeares they vvould never be able to set dovvne any certaine canon as not having any assured ground for vvhich one part should yield to another And still I must be putting you in mynd of the difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants that vve vvho believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost are sure that she cannot deceaue vs vvith false or Apocryphall scriptures nor obtrude any false canon vvheras you vvho rely vpon scripture alone and yet can haue no certainty vvhat is the true canon as appeares both by your mutuall disagreements and because you haue no certaine infallible meanes to knovv vvhat is true scripture can haue no security for your faith in regard you haue no certainty concerning the totall rule therof 56. Your other Demand Whether our Canon of scripture vvas that vvhich vvas set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it be vvell considered is to speake truth exoticall for to the demand vvhat books be Canonicall the direct and right Ansvver is that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture for example Genesis Exodus Psalmes foure Gospells c vvhich Demand and Ansvver abstract from that other question about different Translations and Editions And vvho vvill aske vvhether the Septuagint or Aquila or Luther Calvin Beza Castalio set out a different Canon of scripture I meane for those bookes in which they agree that they are Canonicall and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon or books of scripture are most different Or if you will haue these demands to be all one seing both the Hebrew and Greeke books are corrupted as Calvin confesses your answer to your owne Demand must be that no true canon of scripture can be found and then woe be to Protestants whose Faith and salvation depends vpon the true canon of scripture If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement I Answer They sett forth no different canon but the selfsame to wit those books which before their tyme made vp the canon of scripture And as for the edition of Sixtus it is no good dealing in you to doe in this as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory concealing the large and cleare Answer which Cha Ma gaue to the same objection made by Potter Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3. where by the Authenticall Testimonyes of Persons aboue all exceptiō he shewed that the Decree of Sixtus about his edition was never promulgated that he himself had declared diverse things to haue crept in which needed a second review and that the whole work should be re-examined which he could never do being prevented by death 57. But good Sr. Reflect I beseech you that in this and the like Demands you give deadly wounds to Protestants who profess to rely vpon scripture alone and yet cannot possibly haue any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted by the Hebrew or Greek Texts which they acknowledg to be corrupted and much less by Translations of Protestants who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errours in their Translations as Cha Ma hath shewed Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16. which I wish the Reader for the Eternall good of his soule to peruse and reflect that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith and yet he either is sure that some Texts therof are corrupted or at least not sure but that they are so he cannot be obliged to belieue any one Text nor can in Matters of Eternity rely theron as in case divers meates were set before me wherof I know some to be poysonous and I haue no meanes to discerne them from the other I cannot safely touch any one of them But the matter passes in a far different manner with vs Catholiks as I haue often sayd and must often repeate We being sure that the church can neither approue any least corruption nor ground vpon it any Point of Faith and so a corruption in a true booke of Scripture can no more hurt vs then false Scriptures or Gospells which were vented in the primitive church could prejudice those Christians Nevertheless although as I sayd the church cannot approue any false translation yet she is not obliged at all tymes to declare one for Authenticall till all circumstances considered there appeare some necessity therof as the sacred Councell of Trent did by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations published by moderne Heretiks in favour of theyr heresies and for other just causes Luther himself Lib contra Zwing de verit Corporis Christi in Euchar was at length foroed to confess that If the world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councells and to haue recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now raigne 58. To that which you say in the same N. 29. suppose it had bene true that never any Booke after reteyving had bene Questioned how had this bene a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what moode or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you