her communion and by Ecclesiasticall censures oblige them to doe that which otherwise they are by divine Law most strictly obliged to performe And further if the separation be causeless the separatists from the externall communion of the Church do jointly leaue the Church either by professing a different Faith or denying obedience both to the Church and to God who commands vs not to forsake the communion of the Church faith and obedience being those requisites which say you constitute a man a member of a Church And so all is reduced to your Memorandum a causeless separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Yourselfe say expressly Pag 267. N. 38. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all And why then would you entangle men with I know not what other vnnecessary and vntrue remembrances But necessity hath no Law You cannot giue any reason why you leaue vs aÌ„d yet why Protestants must not leaue one another since it is cleare that they in disagree Points at least not fundameÌ„tall and therfore you fly to other chifts besides the cause which yet you say is all in all though Pag 267. N. 40. you expressly say that the cause or the corruption of our Church is not the only or principall reason of your not communicating with vs. A pretty congruity the cause is all in all and yet is not the principall reason 21. Now to that pretended maine ground of yours It is not lawfull to professe known errours or practise known corruptions I say That either we may consider what is true in it selfe or what in good consequence followes from the principles of Protestants and in particular of Potter and Chillingworth or as the Logicians speake ad hominem which are two very differenr considerations and yet by the assistance of Gods holy grace I will shew that according to both of them Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 22. For the first It is most true in itselfe that in no case it can ever be lawfull to dissemble Equivocate or Ly in matters of Faith and he shall be denyed in Heaven who in that manner denyes God on earth But as I began to say aboue from this very ground we proue that the Church cannot erre in such matters For seing all Fathers Antiquity and Divines haue hitherto proclaimed with a most vnanimous consent that to forsake the externall communion of Gods Visible Church is the sin of Schisme it followes that there can be no cause sufficient for such a division and consequently that she cannot fall into such errours or corruptions as may force any to leaue her Communion And therfore as we proue a priori that the Church cannot fall into errour because she is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost So as it were a posteriori or ab absurdo we must inferr that she is infallible and not subject to errour because otherwise we might forsake her Communion and men could haue no certainty who be Heretikes or Schismatikes but all would be obliged to leaue all Churches seing none are free from errour and so remaining members of no Church on earth could hope for no salvation in Heaven 23. For this cause in the definition of Schisme our Forfathers never put your limiting particle causless well knowing and taking it as a principle in Christianity that there could be no cause to forsake the Communion of Gods Church as in proportion if one should say it is not lawfull to divide ones selfe from Christ without cause he should insinuate that there might be some cause in some case to do so and yet Potter Pag 75. affirmes That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himselfe Durum telum necessitas It could not be denyed that Luther departed from all Churches and so there was no possible way to avoyde the note of open Schisme but by inventing a new definition of that crime and supposing the possibility of a thing impossible that there may be just cause of separating from the Communion of the Church But while they labour to avoide Schisme they broach a most pernicious Heresy that indeed there may be any such just cause verifying what S. Hierome sayth vpon those words of the Apostle which a good conscience some casting off haue suffered shipwracke Though schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to itselfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason That is that their divsion may not seeme to be a causless separation as you speake in your new definition But I pray you heare S. Austine Lib 2. Cont Petil Chap 16. saying I object to thee the sin of Schisme which thou wilt deny but I will straight proue For thou dost not communicate with all Nations To which if you add what he hath Epist 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all Nations vpon just cause and Lib 2. Cont Parm Cap 11. There is no just necessity to divide vnity And Lib 3. Cap 4. The world doth securely judge that they are not good who separate themselves from the world in what part of land soever If I say you consider these sayings of S Austine the conclusion must be that Luther who divided himselfe from the communion of the whole world and all Nations was a Schismatike seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to do so as S. Austine affirmes Obserue also what this same glorious Doctour sayth Lib de Vnit Eccl Cap 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c yet so differ from his Body which is the Church as their communion is not with the whole whersoever it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholike Church Was Luthers communion with the whole which was not with any one place or person Dr. Lawd Pag 139. sayth plainly The whole Church cannot vnâ—versally erre in absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t' is true that there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Which must be vnderstood that absolutely there can be no cause at all For it were ridiculous to say There can be no just cause to make a causeless Schisme or division seing if there be cause it is not causeless And it is to be observed that the Reason he gives why there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church is because she cannot erre in absolute Fundamentall doctrines which supposes both that she may erre in Points not Fundamentall and that errours in such points cannot
yeild sufficient cause to forsake her communion which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not erre Fundamentally and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion by reason of her errours We must therfore conclude that seing there can be no just cause to depart from the communion of the Church and yet that there might be just cause to do so if she were subject to corruption or errour we must absolutely belieue her to be infallible and that they who teach the contrary and vpon that pretence forsake her communion are guilty of Schisme and heresy 24. And this is a fit place to put you in mynd of your doctrine that the Apostles after the receaving of the holy Ghost and the whole Church with them erred in a point clearly revealed and commanded by our Saviour Christ about preaching the Gospells to gentils For this false doctrine supposed I aske whether or no it had been necessary or lawfull to leaue the communion of that most primitiue Church If it were not lawfull then errours even in Faith affoard not a just cause to forsake a Church If you say it was lawfull to forsake the Apostles and the whole Church of their tyme you blaspheme And yet if the Apostles and the whole primitiue Church did erre they that is all Christians might and ought to haue been forsaken and therfore if it were but to avoide this gross absurdity we must say that neither the Church of that nor of consequent ages could erre 25. Thus much be sayd in the first way That considering things as they are in themselves the Church might be forsaken if she could erre and therfore because it is most certaine that she can never be forsaken we must firmely belieue that she cannot erre though indeed I must add that if she could erre she might and might not be forsaken it being no strang thing that vpon a false supposition contradictoryes may follow wherof more herafter 25. Now let vs see what may be sayd in the second way or consideration that is in order to Protestants and their grounds or ad hominem though I must confess this to be a nice and difficult vndertaking by reason of their inconstancy saying and vnsaying as they are forced by different or contrary occasions which make them doe as they can not what they should and never hold constantly what they ought 27. First then we suppose that the Church out of which Luther departed was a true Church for substance whether it were the Roman or any other Church Otherwise we must say that Christ had no true Church on earth which you Potter and all chiefest Protestants deny and expressly teach that alwayes there hath been is and ever shal be such a Church as we haue seene aboue In so much as D. Lawd Pag 141. saieth All Divines Ancient and Moderne Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostasy And Pag 142. he saieth that otherwise falshood in the very Article of the Creed that the Church is Holy may be the subject of the Catholike Faith which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme 28. Secondly Hence it followes that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point every one wherof vtterly destroyes the Church but that her falsly supposed errours were only in Points not Fundamentall or not absolutely necessary to salvation 29. Thirdly That if such errours in Points not Fundamentall do not exclude salvation men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths it being impossible that one belieue an errour and also the truth contrary to that errour and therfore if the errour be not destructiue of salvation it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary therto 30. Fourthly If therfore we can shew that according to Protestants errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not salvation it will follow of it selfe that in their grounds they might and ought to haue remayned in the externall communion of the visible Church notwithstanding such errours since by so doing they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation nor done any thing incompatible therwith For which we take your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient And say I how can it be necessary if one may be saved without it Let vs now see what Protestants hold in this matter 31. I grant that somtyme in words they will seeme to teach that it is necessary to belieue whatsoever is revealed by God if it be sufficiently proposed But if we respect their deeds and consider other grounds of their Doctrine it will appeare that they must hold the contrary ād that in express words they somtyme actually declare so much Neither ought this to seeme any strang thing since Heretiks must say and vnsay to helpe a bad cause as well as their witts will serue them In which respect I could never much approue the great paines which some Catholike Divines imploy to proue that Heretiks hold this or that because somtyme they deliver expressions contrary to that of which it is disputed whether or no it was their Opinion For all that can be inferred from such their different sayings is not that they held determinately this and not that but only that indeed they contradicted and by Gods just judgment destroyed themselves 32. Well then that it is necessary to beleeue whatsoever is revealed by God and sufficiently propounded Potter Pag 245. affirmes in these words It seemes Fundamentall to the Faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and belieue all such Points of Faith as wherof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently convinced doth oppose is obstinate an Hereticke and finally such a one as excludes himselfe out of Heaven wherinto no willfull sinner can enter And Pag 250. It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And herupon Chillingworth Pag 11. speaks to Charity Maintayned in this manner It amazed me to heare you say that he Dr. Potter declines this question and never tells you whether or no there be any other Points of Faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denyed and disbelieved He tells you plainly there are none such Againe it is almost as strang to mee why you should say this was the only thing in question whether a man may deny or disbelieue any Point of Faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth revealed by God Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it
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
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
things indifferent that is neither commanded nor prohibited But as for the thing it self S. Austine never speaks of particular Churches as we haue heard him speak of the vniversall both in this place of which we treate and in other sentences alledged by Ch. Ma. in the saied N. 16. and the Promises of our Saviour were made to the vniversall Church Yea you confess that S. Austine speaking even in this place of those things which he dislikes saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church which words declare that the Scripture Generall Councells the Custome of the vniversall Church and consequently the Church of God can never be saied to approue any such presumptions as S. Austine calls them which he never saieth of particular Churches And therfore when you say that superstitions may in tyme take such deepe roote as to pass for vniversall customes of the Church you contradict S. Austine and that the world may see you doe it plainely and as I may say in actu signato and not only exercito but to his face you take his owne words Consuetudine vniversae Ecclesiae roboratum corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church and say that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austines tyme which circumstance of tyme is to be noted to shew how directly you contradict him prevailed so farre as to be corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and Authority not oily of an vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition And which is more in other places of your Booke you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition not only to S. Austines tyme but even to himself though both imputations be most false and it is strang that through your whole Book you do not so much as once offer any one proofe thereof And yet to shew how causelesly and intemperately you declaime against the Church of S. Austines tyme that you might discredit every Church of every Age and so of all Ages though Protestants commonly hold that the Church was pure in S. Austines tyme you confess he saieth they were not against Faith and only vnprofitable burdens But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem sanamque doctrinam he expresly declares that the truth is to be professed Yea even when there is question not whether a vaine thing be to be permitted but whether a good thing ought to be omitted he saieth Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat vt majora studiosoruÌ„ lucra sperand a sint quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda sine dubitatione faciend um est Now if you be so indiscretely zealous as to say that no inconvenient things are in any case to be tolerated not for feare to offend or for humane respects but for avoiding greater evill you impugne our Saviour and not his Church only who Matth. 13.29.30 forbids the servants to gather vp the cockle least perhaps gathering vp the cockle you may root vp the wheat also togeather with it Suffer both to grow vntill the harvest And you do very wickedly in comparing the observing this advise of our Blessed Saviour to that which He reprehended in the Scribes and Pharises for teaching and not only tolerating perforce vaine things as the washing of pots c Did not the Apostles tolerate for some tyme even after they had received the holy Ghost some Observances of the Mosaicall Law till they became to be deadly as if without them the law of Christ had not beene sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion And for that cause S. Paule saieth stand and be not holden in againe with the joake of servitude Galat. 5. V. 1. and therefore you do absurdly apply against the Church of Christ those words of the Apostle especially seing you confess that those foolish observances which S. Austine dislikes were not against Faith as he saieth expressly that it cannot be found quomodo contra Fidem sint and which is the maine point that they were never decreed by any generall Councell or practised or approved by the vniversall Church which is only our Question Yourself say Pag 301. N. 101. that S. Austine supposed that the publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is vnpolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true of their Communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And towards the end of the same number you say The Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Terâ—ullian variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Therefore you must either free the Church of that tyme from errour or the Donatists from Schisme I haue beene longer in answering this Objection in regard it containes hiddenly more Socinian venome against the Church than appeares at the first sight 58. And now it will be easy to answer your N. 48. wherin you speak thus to Charity Maintayned But you will say not with standing all this S. Austin here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against Faith or good life and so long you may rest securely vpon it What Do you now grant that S. Austine here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue c. Which is the very thing which even now you objected against Cha Ma as if S. Austine had neither saied so not that it could be deduced from what he saied You goe forward and say Yea but S. Austine tells vs in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vaine superstitions and those vrged more severely than the commandements of God and whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeale to our Saviours words before cited and to the concent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it right we shall finde that the Church is not truly saied only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and a farre greater publiquely avowed and practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet do so I desire you to informe me 59. Answer you seeke to deceyue the ignorant by leading them into a misvnderstanding of the word tolerate as if it did signify a voluntary permission of a thing when it is in our power to hinder it where as the Church doth only tolerate abuses in that sense as our Saviour teaches that
only in generall that some commands oblige only vnder a veniall sinne your saying is impertinent to a matter in which the least sin committed by disbelieving any Poynt sufficiently proposed as a divine Revelation is deadly as I haue declared and you often and purposely grant Yea further how can it be sayd that some of the least commandements of which our Saviour speakes are concerning veniall sins seing our Saviour affirmes that whosoever shall break one of his least commandements and shall so teach men shal be called the leastin the kingdome of Heaven if those words signify an exclusion from Heaven Or if this exposition please you not but that you will haue them vnderstood of veniall sins then you must explicate how our Saviour could say he that shall break one of his Commandements obliging only vnder a veniall sin shal be least in the kingdome of Heaven seing all men break such commands by committing veniall sins and so there shal be no comparison or contradistinction of least or great but all must be reckoned amongst the least Besides you must reflect that our Saviour speakes of him that shall break one of his least commandements and shall so teach men Now though it be but a veniall sin to breake a commandement which obliges only to abstaine from a veniall sin yet to teach that it is lawfull to breake any commandement even concerning veniall sins is a great and deadly sin as being an errour against Faith As for example to lye or wittingly to vtter an vntruth ossiciocè or jocose without prejudice vnto any is but a veniall sin yet to belieue and much more to profess and teach that it is no sin to lye were a grievous deadly sin of Heresy To what purpose then do you tell vs of our pretending that some least commandements are only concerning veniall sins But the truth is I conceyue it will be hard to name any writer who doth so oftē cast himself into labyrinths and perplexityes as you doe In the meane tyme it appeares more and more how necessary it is that there be some living judg for determining Controversyes of Religion not only in Articles vniversally and absolutely and in all cases necessary but also for other Poynts which by occasion of emergent Heresyes or for avoyding contentions and danger of Schismes or other causes may necessarily require to be determined And that things profitable taken as it were in generall are necessary to be believed in Gods Church as I haue declared aboue 75. Which truth is yet strongly proved by other words of yours in the same Pag. 9. N. 7. where about holding errours not necessary or not fundamentall you say It imports very much though not for the possibility that you may be saved yet for the probality that you will be so because the holding of these errours though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell as you well know it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by meanes of them many are made vicious and so damned By them I say though not for them No godly Layman who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the vse of your Latine service shall be damned I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderstood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which is might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may be only something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles mortall Lastly as veniall sinnes you say dispose men to mortall so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errours in greater matters As for example The belief of the Popes infallibility is I hope not vnpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falshood as most certainly it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See These be your words to which I may add what you haue Pag. 388. N. 6. where you say to your adversary Wheras you say it is directly against Charity to our selves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation this is true but so this also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous And therfor if the errours of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way or any way endanger it I am in Charity to my self bound to forsake them though they be not destructiue of it And Pag. 278. N. 61. you say If I did not find in my self a loue and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idlenesse and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters being prepared in mynd to follow God and God only which way soever he shall lead me if I did not hope that I either doe or endevour to doe these things certainly I should haue litle hope of obtaining salvation What could haue bene sayd more effectually to proue the necessity of some infallible Meanes to decide controversyes evē in things only somthing profitable as you speake For out of these your own words it will be demanded whether it be no matter that such poynts be declared since they may import very much though not for the possibility that men may be saved yet for the probability that it will be so because the holding of errours in those matters though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation and by the meanes of them many are made vicious and so damned and because the want of that devotion which the truths contrary to those errours might happily beget and the want of that instruction and edification which they might afford may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved since also though the matter of such errours may be only somthing profitable not necessary yet the neglect of them may be a damnable sinne And I pray you what greater neglect then to hold and write as you doe that if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased it is no matter since also erring from some profitable though lesser truth heer is no mention of necessary or very profitable truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters since finally it is against the vertue of charity to ourselves not only to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation but also the omitting any thing
you say Can we imagine that either they ommitted somthing necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it or out of negligence did the work they had vndertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this worke then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it In which words you do nothing but begg the Question still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set downe in writing all necessary Points of Faith which though they knew to be necessary to be believed yet they neither did nor could know that they were necessary to be written which two things you ought to distinguish though it seemes you are resolved never to do so And here also you take vpon you to limit the Gospell to the essentiall and necessary parts of it of which your voluntary restriction I haue already sayd enough 172. But Sr. I cannot chuse but aske you vpon the occasion which here you giue how you can say that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists seing Pag. 144. N. 31. you affirme that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth and against our Saviours express warrant and injunction and Pag. 137. N. 2. you teach that the Church of the Apostles tyme did erre against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause which last generall reason gives scope to proceed in blasphemy if once we say that the Apostles were not in all things belonging to Faith directed by the Holy Ghost and for such as you to say that if they could erre by inadvertence prejudice or some other causes it was not impossible but at length one of those other causes might grow to be malice But more of this herafter Now I will only touch that which I noted before how little credit or authority your reasons ought to haue with any judicious person since you acknowledg it to be but probable that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary and yet you would needs haue your proofes therof to be certaine and evident Thus we haue heard you say Pag. 211.42 Take it as you will this conclusion will certainly follow that all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life Vrceus institui coepit cur Amphora prodit A probability improved to a certainty by the only strength of confidence And Pag. 93. N. 105. you say that vnless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance or malice or negligence certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ I meane all the essentiall and necessary parts of it 173. Morover although you pretend to a certainty that S. Luke hath written all necessary Points which you hold only probable for the other three Evangelists yet your reason comes to be the same for all which is that the Evangelists were obliged to write all things necessary or els this which in effect is all one with the former what reasōn can be imagined that they should not write all things necessary and yet set downe many things only profitable For vnless you presuppose this reason which is common to all the Evangelists you haue no ground to affirme that the words of S. Luke all that Jesus began to doe and teach must signify determinately all necessary things as I haue often sayd and so vppon the matter you haue the same reason for all the foure Evangelists which is no more then the same begging of the Question 174. But what need we vse many reasons Our eyes can witness that the Evangelists haue not written all necessary Points of Faith For to omitt that they haue not set downe the matter and forme of Sacraments the forme of Government of the Church the power of inflicting censures and many such Points which cannot be evidently proved out of scripture alone without the assistance of tradition we do not find clearly expressed in S. Matthew the Eternall generation of the Son of God wherwith S. Iohn beginnes his Gospell In the beginning was the word c. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the wombe of the B. Virgin by vertue of the Holy Ghost His Birth and all other Mysteryes of his sacred life till his age of thirty yeares S Luke as also S Mark omits the giving power to forgiue sins Ioan. 20. V. 22.23 and Matth. 18. V. 18. which is a chief Article of our Creed I beleeue the remission of sinnes S. Iohn wrote nothing of the Annuntiation Nativity Circumcision Epiphany and Ascension of our Saviour Christ and according to Protestants he speakes not of the Eucharist For they deny that Cap. 6. he speakes of that Sacrament And consequently communion vnder both kinds which they hold to be a Divine precept and therfore necessary to salvation is omitted by him as also our Lords prayer All of them haue omitted in their Gospells that which is expressed Act. 2. about the sending of the Holy Ghost and the Decrees of the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. wherin amongst other things they declare that it was not necessary to obserue the Mosaicall Law which is a most important and necessary point I haue bene longer in answering this objection as contayning many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature which I thought best not to divide Let vs now see what more you can object 175. Object 3. Pag 93. N. 105. If men cannot vnderstand by scripture enough for their salvation why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy the scriptures are able to make him wise vnto salvation 376. Answer First It is not sayd the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation And if you had dealt honestly and not conceald what went before and after it would haue been cleare that S. Paul speakes not of scripture alone and of what scripture he speakes and how scripture may instruct to salvation which points being well considered it will appeare that this Text is so farr from proving what you intend that it makes against you S. Paul V 14. and 15. saith Tu vero permane c. But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thy infancy thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith that is in Christ Iesus In which words S. Paul speakes of things which Timothy had learned of him though out of humility ād modesty he concealed his owne name as
which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childrē cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of
containe something against scripture For example whether according to the example of our Saviour the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper or at the tyme when we are wont to supp as Protestants commonly call it the supper which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone but only by authority of the Church which practiseth the contrary And this is so great a doubt that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it and S. Austine answers that we are to follow the custome of Churches though yet in the same Epistle Cap. 7. he saith Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio c. Some were moved with a probable reason that vpon one particular day in the yeare on which our Lord gaue the supper the Body and Bloud of our Lord might be offered ād receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration The same I say of washing the feete and other circumstances which abstracting from the practise of the Church you can haue no certainty but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all And in particular for washing of feet our Saviour Joan. 13. V. 8. said to S. Peter If I wash thee not thou shalt haue no part with me And V. 14. you also ought to wash one anothers feet Mark the word ought which may seeme to sound a commād and was spoken not only to S. Peter but to all the rest Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise Declaration and infallibility we must say that there is a command to wash feete either before we receyve the Eucharist or els absolutely without relation to that Sacrament because our Saviour sayd absolutely you ought to wash one an others feet Morover How will you assure vs that bread for the Matter of Consecration must not of necessity be vnleavened and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme Or if you may cōsecrate in any kind of wine why not in any kind of bread Which are things belonging not only to decency or circumstance but also to the substance of the Sacrament and though they belonged only to circumstance yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture the doing or omission of thē were damnable therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church cānot erre Neither cā he be thought to say these things are not vnlawfull but indifferent therfor it is madness to dispute against them if they be practised by the whole church but contrarily he must say the whole church practises them therfore they are lawfull ād it is madness to dispute against them which were not so if the whole church might erre neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent as you ibid Pag. 151. N. 42. deny not but it might be esteemēd pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstāces of Gods worship And yet S. Austine in that Epistle Cap. 2. having first mentioned things contayned in scripture adds these words But those things which we keep not as written but by tradition if they be observed through the whole world are vnderstood to be kept as recōmended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves or by generall Councells whose authority is most wholsome in the Church and having given examples of things which are differētly observed in different places and countryes saith this kind of things is freely observed neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come ād afterward he disallowes their proceeding who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture nor by tradition of the vniversall church Therfor according to S. Austine if ōce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church we may ād ought to defend it without further dispute ād to impugne ād reject whatsoever practise or doctrine of any particular church or countrey though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble which we could not doe without pride ād folly vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise or deliver any thing against faith ād therfor he saith Cap. 4. that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country will not speake out of scripture neither will he take his proofes frō the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture and the voice of the vniversall church either of which whosoever can alledg he may confidently stand for what they deliver And for this cause cap. 5. he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote was to consider whether that of which there was Question be contayned in scripture or be vnanimously practised by the whole church or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes of which third kind he saith let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself But of the two first kinds he speakes as I noted aboue in another manner that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise and that to dispute against any such thing is most insolent madness What could haue bene spoken more cleare to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church because we judg aforehand that what she practises is lawfull but because we learne by her practise that it is lawfull and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit that is ought to be so done and so we must learne of her both the practise and the lawfulness therof And consequently whatsoever is against scripture or the practise of the vniversall Church must not be ranked among the third kind of things of which he sayd none of those things are against Faith or Manners and contrarily whatsoever is of the two first kinds that is against scripture or the vniversall Church must be esteemed to be of a different nature and contrary to Faith or Manners and therfor saith he velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat vel institui quod non fiebat Either that must be mended which was done amisse or that is to be ordayned which was omitted And therfor your saying here that it is not to be accounted pride or folly to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship is directly against S Austine and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses nor of Heresy even by this most pernicious Doctrine that the vniversall Church may erre 210. From these places of S. Austine and what we haue sayd
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
you take away you destroy the vnity of the Church For a Division of that which is essentiall is a plaine destruction Protestants teach the true preaching of the word and due administration of Sacraments to be so essentiall to the Church that without them a Church ceases to be a Church therfore if there be not agreement or Communion in them they cannot be essentially one Church but essentially different and divided one from another This true Principle being setled 4. The first reason which Charity Maintayned Chap 5. Part 1. N. 12. alledges to proue his Assertion is this Seing Schisme consists essentially in leaving the externall Communion of the Visible Church of Christ and that Luther and his Associars did so as he proves by evidence of fact and by the confessions of Protestants Luther saying in Prà efat Oper suorum in the beginning I was alone And Calvin Ep 141. We were forced to make a separation from the whole world besides the sayings of other Protestants it followes that they cannot be excused from Schisme 5. The Answer which may be gathered out of Dr. Potter to this Reason is That they left not the Church but her Corruptions Which evasion Charity Maintayned confutes by willing him to consider that for the present we speake not of Heresy or departing from the Church but of Schisme of leaving her externall Communion which manifestly they did by separating from all Churches and consequently from the Vniversall Church which is the most formall sinne of Schisme And indeed they ought to inferr that the Vniversall Church is not subject to any errour in Doctrine and not tell the world that they forsooke her Communion for her Errours seing her Communion is never to be forsaken and therfore it is not possible that she can giue any cause of such a separation by falling into errour This we learne of S. Austine Cont Parm Lib 2. Chap 11. There is no just necessity to divide Vnity And Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause And S. Irenaeus Cont Heres Lib 4. C 62. They can not make any so important reformation as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious 6. Secondly Charity Maintayned proves them to be Schismatikes by this Argument Potter teaches that the Catholique Church cannot erre in points of Faith Necessary to salvation and therfore it cannot be damnable to remayne in her Communion although she were falsly supposed to teach some Errours seing they cannot be damnable and consequently cannot yield any necessary cause to leaue her Communion but it is cleare that Luther and the rest left the whole vniversall Church which was extant before them vnder pretense of Errours which cannot be Fundamentall Therfore it is cleare they left Her without any necessary cause Which I confirme by your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. where you say May it please you now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary And Pag 376 N. 57. he that believes all necessary Truth if his life he answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation Therfore say I seing the Church vniversall cannot erre in necessary Points whosoever embraceth her Faith for as much as belongs to Faith cannot faile of salvation vnless you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary which are your owne words You say also Pag 33. N. 4. If a particular man or Church may hold some particular Errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall Errour and yet be shell the Church This parity is none at all yet seing you must make it good I may say much more with all truth and without any dependence vpon your false parity if the Church vniversall may hold some vniversall Errour as you confess she may which yet indeed is impossible and be still the Church why may not a particular man or Church hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall and consequently capable of salvation for as much as concernes his Faith And therfore none can forsake the Church by leaving her Communion and making himself no member of Her for any such errours as are not opposite to a necessary Truth into which kind of errours it is confessed the Church cannot fall To which I may add what yousay Pag 35. N. 7. if some Controversyes may for many Ages he vndetermined and yet in the meane while men be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnisht with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itself to which these meanes are ordayned being as experience shewes not necessary O how truly may we say and happy had your progenitors bene if they had done so If for so many Ages before Luthers pretended Reformation but true Schisme men wrought Miracles converted Nations were eminent for Sanctity attained salvation and are esteemed Saints in Heaven by our Adversaryes and this in the belief and profession of those Points which Catholikes now professe how could any Reformation or separation be necessary since the end itself of salvation to which all meanes are ordained was not necessary but was attained without any such Reformation or separation 7. Like to this Argument of Charity Maintayned is another which N. 22. he tooke from these words of Potter Pag 155. It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error tell she be in Heaven If it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers why were not the first pretended reformers content with enough but rent the Church out of a pernicious greedyness of more then enough or a pretended desire to free men from all errour which cannot be hoped for out of Heaven If even the vniversall Church may not hope to triumph over all Errour till she be in Heaven much less can particular Churches and men conceiue any such hope and so you must either grant that Errours not Fundamentall cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Churches Communion or you must affirme that all Churches may and ought to be forsaken and that a man cannot lawfully be of any Church yea and that every one is obliged to forsake himself if it were possible for avoyding errours not Fundamentall Besides as it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners
so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And Tom 5. Annot breviss he sayth Dost thou who art but One and of no account take vpon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all Mark all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those Arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom do not these Mountaines of Arguments these clouds yea these seas of examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq mensall Fol 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried Praefat in Tom German Jen in eternall oblivion 15. Another Argument to proue that Protestants are Schismatiks at least for dividing themselves from one another is delivered by Charity Mamtayned Part 1. N. 38. Pag 203. For if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines farr different from his and divided themselves from him must be reputed Schismatiks and the like Argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason is confirmed out of Dr. Potter Pag 20. affirming that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errours of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teaches as I shewe elswere that their difference from the Roman Church is not in Fundamentall poynts and therfore seing Protestants differ in Points at least not Fundamentall a reconciliation between them must be impossible and damnable Which yet may be further proved out of Potter who Pag 69. confesseth that even among Protestants the weeds thistles tares and cockle are not perfectly taken away nor every where alike Now I aske whether by reason of these weeds Ptotestants must separate from one another or no If they must there will be no end of Schismes and Divisions and what a Church or Churches are those from which one is obliged to divide himself If they must not separate from one another by reason of errours or weeds it was not lawfull for them to divide theÌ„selves from vs vnless they will returne to say that Protestants are obliged to separate both from Catholikes and from one another making eÌ„dless Schismes and Divisions not only lawfull but necessary For which Chilling worth opens a fayre way Pag 292. N. 91. in these words If the Church were obnaxious to corruption as we Protestants pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 〈◊〉 or 4. or 3. or 2. age What is this but to say that in those primitiue ages for ought we know men were obliged to forsake the Communion of the vniversall visible Church 16. To these reasons we may yet add what Potter saith Pag 131 and 132. That the Donatists and Novatians were just branded for Schismatiks for opposing the Church and that it will never be proved that Protestants oppose any Declaration of the Catholike Church and therfore are vnjustly charged either with schisme or Heresy But M. Doctor I beseech you informe vs whether Luther and his followers did not oppose the doctrines and declarations of all Churches extant before them and consequently of the vniversall Church And therfore you are justly charged both with Schisme and Heresy according to your owne ground 17. Other Arguments Charity Maintayned alledges of which we shall haue occasion to treate herafter Particularly that is to be observed which N. 47 Pag 221. et seqq he proves to wit that Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church and were Schismatiks for such their division from her Communion And because some Protestants are wont to produce certaine persons as members of their Church harity Maintayned demonstrates that the Grecians Waldenses Wickless Huss Muscovites Armenians Georgians cannot be of the same Church with Protestants and therfore that Luther and his followers opposed the doctrine and separated themselves from the Communion of all Christian Churches which cannot be done without Schisme and Heresy vnless men haue a mynd to deny that there are any such sins as Schisme and Heresy And here I must not omit that Chillingworth thought it not wisdome to answer the discourse of Charity Maintayned proving that the aforesayd people Waldenses Wickleff c were Protestants but dissembles that matter A signe that he judged those vulgar allegations of Protestants to be wholy false and impertinent 18. Now then we having proved that Potters evasions cannot cleare Protestants from Schisme we must examine what you can say whose answers being confuted this truth will remaine firme Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 19. Your mayne and capitall answer consists in three propositions set downe Pag 264. And 265. N. 30 3â—.32 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme That imposing vpon men vnder payne of excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practâ—sing known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledge to justify their separation from the Church of Rome That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church at least as Dr. Potter vnderstands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requïsites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her liturgies and publike worship of God 20. These be his remembrances and memorandums as he calls them but indeed are conceypts borrowed out of a letter of Mr. John Hales of Eaton written to a private friend of his as I am most credibly informed by a Person well knowen to them both at that tyme and who sawe the letter itself And further affirmes of his owne certaine knowledg that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judgment one yeare for example doubting of or denying the Blessed Trinity the next yeare professing and adoring the same The substance of all consists in the first That only a causeless separation from the externall communion of any â—hurch is the sin of Schisme For if you aske the cause excusing from Schisme their separation from vs he will answer The Church was corrupted and it is not lawfull to communicate with any Church in her corruptions This I say is his mayne ground with which his other Momorandums must stand or fall For if either the Church cannot erre or els her errours and corruptions be not such as can yield just cause to leaue her externall communion the Prelates of Gods Church may impose vpon maÌ„ vnder paine of excommuniation a necessity to remaine in
tyme and then disappeared as if it had never been And by this is answered what you object in the sayd Page 260. against the saying of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 165. N. 11. That all Devines by defining Schisme to be a division from the Church suppose that there must be a knowne Church from which it is possible for men to depart 95. Object 4. Pag 254. N. 4. you cite Charity Maintayned as saying thus That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in the division must be so likewise which say you is not so certaine as you pretend But the word certainly which you set downe as the word of Charity maintayned and vpon which you ground your Objection is not to be found in his words Pag 151. which you pretend to alledge Yet because the thing in it selfe is certainly true let vs heare what you can object to the contrary You say they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall do committ a great fault wherof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and no the vtmost of their power oppose a chang though to the former state when continuance of tyme hath once setled the present 96. Answer It is no less then great prophaness in you to make a parity between a Schisme from Gods Church which is intrinsecè and essentially vnlawfull and alterations in a Civill or Ecclesiasticall state for things accidentall and of their nature indifferent For if you suppose those alterations to be of their owne nature vnlawfull and sinfull they can never be innocent who continue them nor can any continuance of tyme establish them Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church by sinfull profession of Faith contrary in many Points to the beliefe of all Churches for you suppose for the present that their separation was causeless and sinfull which is to be noted and will you say it is lawfull to continue in a false profession of Faith against ones conscience because others haue begun it How oftē do you profess that it is alwayes damnable to dissemble or speake against ones conscience in matters of Faith Well then if vpon supposition he be obliged to profess the whole Catholique Faith he must among other Points belieue that it is absolutely vnlawfull to communicate with Heretiks in their Sacraments and that there can be no just cause to liue out of the Communion of the Church and that it is vnlawfull either to begin or continue a division from Her and that they are obliged to returne to Her Communion And this I proue out of your owne words Pag 312. N. 112. it should be 113. where you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner You spend a great deale of reading and witt and reason against some men who pretending to honour and belieue the Doctrine and Practise of the visible Church you meane your owne and condemning their forefathers who forsooke her say they would not haue done so yet remaine divided from Her Communion VVhich men in my judgment cannot be defended For if they belieue the doctrine of your Church then must they belieue this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therfore if they do not so it cannot be avoyded but that they must be a'vtocatacritoi Behold whosoever believes as we do must also belieue that they cannot continue this Schisme begun by others I wish all would reflect vpon this grant which evidence of truth hath drawne from you though it hath cost you a contradiction against your saying that a Schisme with vs might be begun with sin and yet they be innocent who continue it Your captious Words that Charity Maintayned should not haue written against these kind of men in a worke which he professes to haue written meerly against Protestants shall be answered in their proper place 97. Object 5. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. said Charity vniteth all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body VVhich you say Pag 255. N. 6. is manifestly vntrue for many of them haue no Charity 98. Answer Some would say that it is hard to determine whether this objection hath more of the insolent or proud or malicious But I abstaine from censures What Charity Maintayned saied was not his alone but the Doctrine of all Divines and in particular of the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas whose express words he cited wherin 2.2 Quest 39. Art 1. in Corp he defines Schisme A voluntary separation from the vnity of that Charity wherby all the members of the Church are vnited Peccatum saith he Schismatis propriè est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intenditse ab vnitate separare quam Charitas facit In which words of this holy Doctour you haue both the affirmation of Charity Maintayned and the reason therof That as Heresy is opposite to Faith so Schisme to Charity and for that cause Heresy and Schisme are two distinct vices Otherwise how will you distinguish them In the same place as also N. 7. Charity Maintayned alledges S. Austine Lib. 1. de Fid ad Simp Cap 10. saying Heretiks corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiks by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they belieue what we belieue And Lib 1. de Serm Dom in Mon Cap. 5. Many Heretiks vnder the name of Christians deceaving mens soules do suffer many such things but where there is not sound Faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiks promise to themselves any part of this reward Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be justice The loue of our neighbour doth not worke evill which if they had they would not teare in peeces the Body of Christ which is the Church Do you not see that this Saint still opposes Heresy to Faith and Schisme to that Charity which vnites the members of Gods Church in one mysticall Body which Schisme divides Also the same Saint sayes Ep 204. Being out of the Church and divided from the heape of vnity and the bond of Charity thou shouldest be punished with eternall death though thou shouldest be burned aliue for the name of Christ Now if many of the members of the Church haue no Charity as you say they must be Schismatiks or if they be not they haue that Charity which Schismatiks want and consequently it is vntrue that they haue no Charity Will you haue them be members of the Church because they are not divided from her by Schisme and yet not be members of the Church in regard they haue no Charity Potter Pag 42. saith Though faith be kept entire yet if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnton dissolved Schisme is no lesse damnable than Heresy Why do you not object against your client That many members of
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not 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 beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
could not haue believed Her in any one and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles but may erre in Points not Fundamentall both which things are granted by Protestants I hope you will not deny but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises must be That she lost part and kept part of that infallibility with which she was endued before Scripture was written and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture that the Church by the writing therof was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles beside what I sayd even now that according to your instance of a way the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility when by writing of some Scriptures some points were made cleare in writing which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide that is the Church And now consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you as you with your wanted humility speake to him jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis 45. Your N 141. hath beene answered in my confutation of your N. 124. concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church in your N. 142. you say to Charity Maintayned For particular rites and ceremonyes and orders for government our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul let all things be done decently and in order But what order is fittest i. e. what tyme what Place what Manner c is fittest that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you meane that he hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in Generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content yourselfe or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 46. Answer My hope was at the first general view of this section to haue answered it in very few words But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment that to vnfold them will require some little more tyme and paynes First you cite Ch Ma. imperfectly His words Part 1. P. 69. N. 23. are He Dr. Potter affirmes that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament and will he so vnworthily and â—â—justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Expecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonyes Rites Punishments Judgments Sacraments Sacrifices c were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue To these words you say I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what particulars And then you distinguish Rites and Ceremonyes and Orders for Governement from matters of Faith which indeed is no distinction if the matter be duly considered For although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes may chance to be of themselves indifferent and neither forbidden or commanded to be practised or omitted yet to be assured that indeed they are indifferent and not sinfull or superstitious and so infectiue of the whole Church we need some infallible authority And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy or Governement of the Church as I sayd hertofore which is a Fundamentall point if any can be Fundamentall to the constituting a Church For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said that our aviour left to his Church the determination or declaration of particulars but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person or community without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull and so a Determination or Ordination must suppose or imply in fact a declaration Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites and Ceremonyes because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini quin Ecclesijs nostris notam haereseos inurerem Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam Thus your demand what particulars Charity Maitâ—yned vnderstood is answered namely that he vnderstood all particulars which occasion might require to be ordained determined and declared by the Church but in the meane tyme where or when did Ch Ma say or dreame that which you say is apparently false that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in generall that â—â—â—re to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue Your conscience cannot but beare witness against your owne words that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine that we are bound to belieue whatsoever is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God professing every where that this is the Ground for which he avouches that of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must be in a damnable state and that for this cause we are bound to belieue every particular truth contained in Scripture or defined by the Church which are millions And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but your imputation is apparently false Yet to say the truth that Doctrine which you say is apparently false aÌ„d no less falsely imputed to vs might be very true if it should stand or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility 47. The Church say you being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue To which I may answer as you say to Charity Maintayned I wonder you would impugne that as apparently false which must be apparently true if the ground of all your doctrine be true That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe and determines what he is to belieue and so your kind of Church being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner it followes that it is left to all Believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles which
it remaines that all his interrogations were fully answered the very foundation vpon which they stood that the Creed containes all necessary points being demolished and in particular his interrogation What tyranny is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians Seing yourselfe acknowledge that he professes the Creed to containe all necessary points of Faith not absolutely but as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholick Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesius Chalcedon and Athanasius which are his owne words Pag 216. and therfor he must answer his owne demand What tyranny is it to impose any new vnnecessary matters c. Since the declaration of those Councells were long after the Apostles time and for this cause you expresly professe to forsake the Doctour in this his explication of the Creed as we haue seene hertofore 57. To your N. 69.70.71.72.73 I answer Ch. Ma. had reason to say that Potter citing the words of S. Paul Act. 20. V. 27. adds this glosse of his owne needfull for our salvation For the Apostle both in our translation and in the Protestant English Bible hath profitable not needfull and yourselfe here N. 69. grant the same And speaking in rigor that which is strictly profitable is not needfull or necessary nor that which is properly needfull is profitable as profitable and needfull are membra contradistincta as when we distinguish Meanes to some End that some are profitable others necessary and you know it is in Logick no good division wherin one of the membra dividentia includes the other and therfor your saying to Ch Ma I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoeuer is needfull for salvation is very profitable is spoken with greater confidence then truth But for our present purpose seing the Apostle Uers 20. sayth I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable and sayth not I haue withdrawen nothing that was needfull it followes that the Apostle taught not only necessary but also profitable things and thence I inferr that when he sayth V. 27. I haue not spared to declare vnto you all the counsel of God he meant not only of necessary but also of profitable points and therfore of more thē are contained in the Creed For which cause he C Ma. had reasō to take notice of this place in particular which clearly shewes out of the very text of Scripture which Potter cites his interrogations to be of no force but only to begg the question by supposing vntruly that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed To salue this you say N. 70. It is not D. Potter that beggs the Question but you that mistake it which is not here in this particular place whether all points of simple Beliefe necessary for the salvation of the primitiue Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol for that and the proofes of it follow after in the next § Pag. 223. of Dr. Potter but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to belieue now which was not so from the beginning 58. Answer Dr. Potter Pag 216.217 sayeth The Creed of the Apostles is sayd generally by the Schoolemen and Fathers to comprehend a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentall truths and to imply a full rejection of Fundamentall heresies and hath been receaved by Orthodox Christians as an absolute summarie of the Christian Faith For proofe wherof we will first argue ad hominem and teach the Mistaker how to esteeme of his Creed out of his owne Masters And then having alledged divers Catholik Writers to proue his Assertion he adds it were easy to multiply testimonies to this effect out of their late and ancient schoole Doctors if it were not tedious All agree that the Creed briefely comprehends all Fundamentall principles or rudiments of Faith that it is a distinctiue Character severing Orthodox believers from insidels and heretiks that it is a full perfect and sufficient summary of the Catholik Faith Thus he And immediatly after sayth Their judgment that is the judgment of Catholik Authors whom he alledged herein that is for the purpos of proving the Creed to containe all Fundamentall Articles seemes full of reason And his reasons he setts downe in these words immediatly following For how can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times May the Church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it And so he goes on with his interrogations and in the same context hath these words of which we speake The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation What Tyranny then is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians I pray you consider whether he doth not speake expressly of the Apostles Creed when he saith How can it be necessary for any Chrictian to haue more in this Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their time And doe not you N. 15. expressly vnderstand these words of the Doctor of the Apostles Creed as it is a full comprehension of that part of the beliefe of the Apostles which cōtaines only the necessary articles of simple Faith And consequently when the Doctour askes How can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had his demand must be How can it be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Creed containes Which evidently supposes that the Creed containes all things necessary otherwise it might be necessary to belieue some thing not contained in the Creed Besides what connexion can ther be in the Doctours words taken in your sense which will make him argue in this manner No Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed who certainly believed more then is contained in the Creed Therfor the judgment of those who teach that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points is full of reason And indeed the Doctor had no occasion at all to proue that it can not be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Apostles did belieue neither did Ch Ma say any such thing And why doe you N. 67. exact of C Ma an āswer to D. Potters interrogations if they proue only that no Christiā is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed which as I sayd Ch Ma never denied Will you haue him C Ma confute his owne judgment and answer those arguments which were intended only to proue his owne beliefe Thus while you will be clearing the Doctour from begging the question you make him with great paines and pompe of words make many patheticall interrogations nothing to the purpose and grant that which is the only maine point that those his interrogations proue not that all fundamentall points be contained in the Creed Chuse of these inconveniences which you please
this one article of the Church is too short for a Creed or abridgment of Faith and must haue been enlarged by some Creed Cathecisme c. And as Potter and you limited the promise of our Saviour to the Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it to fundamentall points or to a sufficient but not a certainly effectuall assistance or some other way the same would you haue done though he had specified the Roman Church 78. Your last N. 84. containes nothing in effect besides what you and Potter haue saied and hath been confuted already We deny not but that the Creed containes all fundamentall points in the sense which I haue declared more then once aÌ„d which Catholick Writers intend when they say it containes all fuch articles and the Reader will receaue further satisfaction by perusing the N. 26. of Ch Ma. as it is delivered by himselfe as also he will finde that you haue omitted some points of importance which Ch. Ma. hath set downe N. 27. as in particular That the very councell of Nice which sayth Whitgâ—ft in his defense Pag. 3â—0 is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next vnto the Scriptures themselves decreed that to those that were chosen to the ministery vnmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants Lastly in answer to the direction N. 33. you vndoe all that Dr. Potter and you haue done in labouring to proue that the Creed containes all necessary articles of simple Belief For thus you speak The granting of this principle that all things necessary to sâ—lvation are evidently contained in Scripture plainly renders the whole disppute touching the Creed vnnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be cleerly contained in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed CHAP XIV THE ANSWER TO HIS FIFTH CHAPTER ABOVT SCHISME 1. OMitting to say any thing by way of preface and introduction your N. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 haue been answered particularly and at large in my Chapter 7. The cavills which N. 10.11.12 you vse in avoyding the Authorities of some Fathers which Ch Ma alledged N. 8. to proue that it can never be Lawfull to separate from the Church doe proue more and more the impossibility of deciding controversies by Scripture or any one writing Whosoever considers the place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Austin Cont Parmen L. 2. C. 11. Ther is no just necessity to divide vnity will finde that those words must be vniversall and serue for the Major Proposition to proue that the Donatists could haue no necessity to divide theÌ„selves from the Church of which division he saieth that it appeares non esse quicquaÌ„ gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis And if S. Austins proposition be not vniversall his argument had been but Petitio princicipij taking for granted that which was in controversie namely whether the Donatists had just cause to depart from the Church So that indeed those words of S. Austin There is no just necessity to divide vnity must suppsose that the Church cannot erre nor that men can receaue any spirituall hurt by her doctrine and that she can neither doe nor approue ill All which hath been declared hertofore both for the matter itselfe and for the meaning of S. Austin in divers other sayings of his But it seemes you wanted better matter when you tell vs of want of diligence in quoting the 62. Ch. of that booke of S. Austine which hath but 23. in it And when you say that the words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such promises as Ch. Ma. pretends For as lately you did persecute the printer for that which Ch. Ma. had put amongst the Errata so here you note that which Ch. Ma. himselfe cited right N. 21. as every one may see Neither is it any better then ridiculous for you to say that the words of S. Austin are not inferred out of any such premisses as Ch. Ma. pretends seing he neither pretends nor mentions any other premisses besides that which he in the immediatly precedent Number had sayd out of the Holy Fathers that Schisme was a grievous sinne and I beseech you from whence can S. Austin inferr that ther can be no just necessity to divide vnity except from a supposition that Schisme is a grievous sinne or as he speakes here non esse quicquaÌ„ gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis But it is a signe you are sinking when you are glad to take hold of any thing be it never so weake 2. The same answer serves for your evasion to the words of S. Irenaeus cont heraet Lib. 4. Cap. 6â— They cannot make any so important reformaâ—ion as the â—ll of the Schisme is pernâ—â—ous which must suppose that the Church cannot erre in matters of faith whether they be great or little in their owne nature and therfor he sayth expresly God will judge all those who are out of truth that is who are out of the Church Iudicabit omnes eos quisunt extra veritatem id est qui sunt extra Ecclesiam And therfore much more will he judge men if for small matters they should part from the Church And you see he supposes all to be out of the Truth who are out of the Church which were not true if the Church could deliver fals Doctrine For so one might be in the Church and not in the Truth The example of the Quartodecimani who by the ancient Fathers are reckoned among Hereticks makes directly against yourselfe Neither doth it import that the controversie about keeping Easter may seeme to be only concerning a circumstance of time and not immediatly and expresly of a revealed Truth For indeed to say it was necessary to keepe Easter as the Jewes did for the circumstance of time was a formall pernicious heresy no lesse then to bring in a necessity of observing othr rites of the Jewish Law and so the words which you alleadge out of Petavius make nothing for you against vs. For this cause the observation of Easter at a certaine time might be tolerated as some rites of the Jewes were till they were affirmed to be necessary after which time they were to be reputed not only dead but deadly and so would that custome of keeping Easter haue been after it was pretended to be kept as necessary Of which point and of the excommunication inflicted by holy Pope Uictor Ch. Ma. hath spoken sufficiently in his 2. part 3. Your answer to the words of S. Denis of Alexandria is evidently a meere shift For to say as he doth apud Eusebium Hist Eccles L. 6. Cap. 25. All things should rather be endured then to consent to the division of the Church of God must necessarily suppose that it can never be lawfull to part from the Church and if it were lawfull to doe soe it could not vniversally be a
Truth and will be such in despight of Heresie Sophistrie and witt One favour I must acknowledg to receyue from Mr Chillingworth though I owe him no thanks for it that his Contradictions are so frequent as they alone are enough to confute himself Whereof I giue no examples heere in regard they perpetually offer themselves through his whole Book as the Reader will perceyue and if I be not deceived not without wonder that a man so cryed vp by some other should so patently be decryed by himself not vpon any sense of humility but by the fate as I may saie of falshood which cannot be long constant to itself (a) Anastasius Synaita Cap 15. odegou Sunt qui nihil peusi habent etiamsi inconsequenter loquantur aut in praecipitia se ingerant dummodo Adversatijs rectè sentientibus creent molestiam And this must needs appeare credible if we consider that those Books which were first published against him agree in the same judgment of his Contradictions though I am verie certaine they could not borrow their censure from one an other 8. As for the bulk of my Book I must acknowledg that it might haue bene comprised in a lesser compass if I could in wisdom haue measured the conceypts of men by the matter which certainly did oftentimes not require or deserue any Answer But we are debters sapientibus insipientibus to all sorts of persons and many will be apt to Judge and proclaime all that to be vnanswerable which is not actually answered to their hand Nevertheless vpon exact account though Mr Chillingworth answer one Parte only of Charity Maintayned yet you see it is no small volume but is more than three times greater than the Part answered And so one half of Charity Maintayned temaines till this day vnanswered 9. I meddle not with Mr Chillingworths Answer by waie of Preface to a litle Work intituled A Direction to N. N. because presently vpon the publishing of his Book that Preface of his was in such manner confuted by a wittie erudite and solid Book with this Title The judgment of an Vniversity-man concerning Mr William Chillingworth his late Pamphlet in Answer to Charity Maintayned that He was much troubled thereat but yet thought fit to disgest his vexation by silence 10. But the maine Point which I must propose heere and which I confide everie indifferent Reader will finde to be clearely evinced even out of Mr Chillingworths owne words is this That whereas he gives this Title to his Book The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he might and ought in stead thereof either to haue saied The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation Or The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe way to salvation Or finally Christian Religion not a safe way to salvation For 11. First He confesses that some Protestants must be in errours and proves it because they hold Propositions contradictorie one to an other and besides he teaches that millions of them erre damnably in these words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betraied into or kept in any Errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable Yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but perdonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite repentance for all sinnes known and vnknowne To which words if we add what he saieth Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therefore in themselves were damnable The Conclusion will be that the errours of Protestants are damnable in themselves Otherwise they needed no pardon or repentance nor could it be a sinne to he betrayed into or kept in them And Pag 19. and 20. he saieth If they faile to vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudeÌ„ce and ordinary discretion shall advise them vnto in a matter of such consequence then their errors begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offences aganst God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vs. And he in the same place expresly affirmes that the farre greater parte of Protestants are in this case So that now he sends to Hell the greater parte of Protestants for the errours which they hold and yet makes no scruple to delude them with a verball Mock-Title that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to salvation But this is not all He saieth Pag 218. N. 49. I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants vnconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearefull that some of their opioions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with them yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Perfection of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne and not seldome of security in sinning and consequently though not certaine causes yet too frequent occasions of menâ— Damnation All these be his express words And how can that Religion be a safe way to salvation which not accidentally but even by the Doctrine thereof gives so frequent occasions of meâ—â— Damnation And Pag 387. N. 4. he grants that Charity Maintayned hath Something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or other to leaue their Communion From which words it necessarily followes that all Protestants are in state of sinne and damnation either because they themselves hold errours or by reason they leaue not the Communion of those who hold them And P. 280. N. 95. he saith to vs Though Protestants haue some Errors yet they are not so great as yours which last though it were true as it is most false yet it is impertinent yea it makes against Protestants by granting that theyr errors are damnable though not so damnable as ours and consequently that their Religion cannot be a safe way to salvation And it is to be observed that he writes the saied words that Protestants baue some Errors in conformity to what Dr Potter confesses Pag 69. that errors and corruptions are not perfectly taken away among Protestants nor every where alike And what a safe way can that Sect be which by the Professors and Defenders thereof is confessed to be guilty of Errors against Faith and damnable in themselves He speaks also fully to my purpose when he saieth Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in their Communion he speaks of Protestants notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errours are not damnable As that they require not the belief and profession of these errors among the conditions of their Communion Which excuse of his doth not extenuate but aggravate the
acknowledges to be a most profound master of spirit This holy Father Homil. 11. in EZechiel hath these remarkable words If sinne be not speedily wiped away by repeÌ„tance Almighty God in his iust iudgment permitts the soule of the sinner to fall into another sinne that he who by weeping aÌ„d correcting himselfe would not wash away what he had committed may beginne to heape sinne vpon sinne The sinne therfore which is not washed away with the sorrow of repentance is both a sinne and cause of sinne because from it procedes that wherby the soule of the sinner is more deeply intangled But the sinne which followes out of another sinne is both a sinne and a punishment of sinne because blindnes encreasing in punishment of the former fault it falleth out that increase in vice is as it were a kind of punishment in such a sinner For the most part one and the selfe same sinne is both a sinne and the punishment and cause of sinne These last words he hath also in Iob lib. 25. C. 13. Agreable to this is the saying of the Author Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum C. 21. As when the sterne is broken the ship is carryed whersoeuer the storme driues it so a sinner hauing by his sinne lost the assistance of diuine Grace doth not what he will but what the diuell wills XXXVII The same truth is also deliuered by the Apostle Rom. 8.5 They that are according to the flesh are affected to things that are of the flesh but they that are according to the spirit are affected to the things that are of the spirit and V. 8. concludes they that are in flesh cannot please God But all they who want the spirit and grace of God are in flesh according to the same Apostle V. 9. You are not in the flesh but in the spirit yet if the spirit of God dwell in you Therfor they that want the spirit or grace of God cannot please him which is done only by keeping the commandements Thus we find verefyed by daily experience That he who is once fallen into deadly sinne doth not easily abstaine from coÌ„mitting more vnless he speedily rise againe And in this Gods holy will is most iust not giuing those helps to his enemyes which he bestowes on his friends whose soules as his temples he often visits enlightens inflames and effectually strengthens to keepe his commandements XXXVIII It is the true doctrine of Diuines that an infidell cannot abstaine from deadly sinne so long as one endued with Faith He therfor who hath not Charitie cannot auoide mortall sinne so long as hee who is in state of grace and charity and receyues those particular helps which are connaturall to that blessed condition S. Thomas 1.2 q. 109. A. 8. corp giues as he is wont a solid reason hereof As saith he the inferiour appetite ought to be subiect to reason so reason ought to be subordinate to God As therfor there cannot but arise disordinate motions in the seÌ„sitiue apetite if it be not perfectly subject to reason so if reason be not perfectly subiect to God there cannot but happen many disorders in the reasonable portion of our soule For when man hath nor his hart setled in God as in the last end of all his actions many things offer themselues for the obtaining or auoiding of which he forsakes God by breaking his commandements vnless his disordered will be speedily reduced to due order by grace And indeed he who wittingly and willingly perseuers in sinne is not drawen from it either by considering that it is an offence against God since he out of deliberate choyse and election remains in such an offence or for the infinite and innumerable euills which arise from sinne all which he hath considered and knowes that they or the danger of falling into them are incurred already and yet is supposed not to forsake that damnable state And custome in euill is apt to breede either a secret or open dispaire of amendment or els a pernicious insensibility security and presumption laying the soule open to accept all impressions of spirituall enemyes as in the barren season of winter hedges are broken inclosures become commons and are turned to high wayes for all passengers But now it is tyme to performe what we promised in the beginning of this Section that besides Actuall grace there is also a permanent quality or gift inherent in our soule wherby we are called and are indeed just and Sonnes and Heyres to God and Coheires to Christ our Lord. SECTION IX Of Habituall or justifying Grace in it selfe XXXIX HItherto we haue spoken of Actuall grace necessary to workes of Christian Piety Faith Hope c. Or of Habituall in order to the keeping of the commandements Now we cannot omitt to say somthing of habituall and permanent justifying supernaturall Grace in it self Concerning which heretiques as their manner is fall vpon contrary Extremes Pelagius teaching that we may be saued by the forces of nature consequently must deny that any infused inherent supernaturall Gift was necessary to saluation but that some naturall â—nherent quality was sufficient Contrary to which is the doctrine of Caluin Lib. 3. jnstit C. 11. Num 23. That man is not iust by any justice inherent in himselfe but only because the justice of Christ is imputed to him Catholiques auoiding both these extreames belieue that we are truly just in not by our selues or our naturall forces but by supernaturall Grace infused into our soules for the merits of our Sauiour Christ as the sacred Councell of Trent Sess 6. C. 7. and Can. 11. hath defined XL. This is that diuine gift which makes men holy in this life and happy in the next a Amicus To 3. disp 29. n. 119. Other infused Habits are particular participations of Diuine operations namely Charity and Hope respectiuely of that loue wherby God loues himselfe and other things Faith of that infallible knowledg which God hath of himselfe and all creatures The light of glory lumen gloriae of that sight which God hath of his proper essence the morall infused Vertues of those actions which God exercises towards his creature But Grace is a Gift immediatly participating of the whole Diuine nature as it can be intellectually participated by an intellectuall creature As in our naturall life our soule is the roote of its powers which it requires as propertyes and is more eminent than they so in our spirituall life this Grace is the roote of all supernaturall Habits and farr exceedes them in perfection XLI Of this in a most singular manner are verifyed the Elogiums which holy Fathers giue of grace b Amicus To 3. Proem ante Disp 26. which according to S. Gregory Homil. 27. is the roote of good works which according to S Chrisostome Homil 7.2 ad Thimoth and 1. au Corinth Hom. 40 takes away the rust of sinne makes the soule resplendent and fiery which according to S. Augustine Libro de Spiritu littera Capite
of opinions or strayings of errours By the name of substance something certaine and setled is appoynted thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine for faith is not an Opinion but a certainty But concerning this Text of S. Paul more shall be sayd herafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome The same Apostle Heb. 6. V. 17. 18. 19. sayth God meaning more aboundantly to shew to the heires of the promise the stability of his counsell he interposed an Oath That by two things vnmooueable wherby it is impossible for God to lie we may haue a most strong comfort who haue fled to hold fast the hope proposed which we haue as an anker of the soule sure and firme But how can we haue a most strong comfort an anker of the soule sure and sirme or how doth he shew to the heires of his promise the stability of his counsell if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilityes which are not stable but of themselues subject to change and falshood and for ought we know may finally prooue to be such as long as we haue no other certainty to the contrary Or how can we be assured of that concerning which God interposed an Oath if we be not sure that he euer interposed an Oath or euer witnessed or reuealed any thinge 1. Thessall 2.12 We giue thankes to God without intermission because when you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receyued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God which must signify that they receyued it by an Assent proportionable to such an Authority Motiue and Formall Object and therfore certaine infallible and aboue all humane faith opynion and probability For this cause the Apostle giues thanks to God because when they had receyved the word of God they receyued it as such declaring that they belieued with an assent requiring Gods speciall Grace for which thankes are to be giuē eleuating the soule aboue the forces of nature to a super naturall certaine Act proportionable as I sayd to so sublime an Authority 2. Tim. 1.12 I know whom I haue belieued and I am sure that he is able to keepe my depositum vnto that day Where S. Paule speakes of God as a judg and of the day of judgment and reward of the just which are Articles of Christian Faith not knowne by the light of reason This Text is alledged by S. Bernard Ep. 190. to this very purpose saying Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius The Apostle cryes out I know whom I haue belieued and I am certaine and dost thou whisper Faith is opinion dost thou prate as of a doubtfull thing concerning that than which nothing is more certaine Act. 2.36 Let all the house of Israel know most certainly not only probably that God hath made him both Lord and Christ this Iesus whom you haue crucifyed 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue the propheticall word more sure which you doe well attending vnto as to a cādel shining in a darke place In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets which we belieue by faith concerning Christ our Sauiour with the sight of the eyes and hearing of the eares of the Apostles on Mount Thabor when they sawe our Sauiours glory and heard the voyce of his Father saying This is my beloued Son and yet saith that the Propheticall word is more sure And by this place we also gather that faith though it be jnfallible ād certaine yet is ineuident and obscure like to a candle in a darke place which obscures the light of the candle against the doctrine of Chillingworth that certainty and obscurity are incompatible Luke 21.33 Heauen and Earth shall passe but my words shall not passe Surely if his words were belieued by vs only with a probable assent we could not in good reason thinke they were more stable than heauen and earth which by euidence of sinse and reason we see to be constant firme and permanent 1. Ioan. 5. Yf we receyue the testimony of men the testimony of God is greater But as I sayd aboue what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in it selfe if we can assent to it no more firmely than the Arguments of Credibility or history and humane tradition and testimony of men enable vs For by this meanes we shall finally be brought as low as humane faith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God The contrary wherof we must affirme in his principles who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power or rather jmpotency of humane tradition and reason Which last Texts do clearly ouerthrow his doctrine that we belieue the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition and testimony of men not for the jnfallible Authority of Gods Church 2. Pet. 1.21 For not by mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost What neede of diuine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion euidently deduced from premisses euidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prooue false 1. Pet. 5.9 Whom resist ye strong in Faith Tob. 3.21 This hath euery one for certaine that worshippeth thee that his life if it be in probation shall be crowned Ioan. 10.35 If he called them Goddes to whom the word of God was made and the Scripture cannot be broken May not the Scriptures be broken in order to vs if for ought we certainly know their Authority is not divine nor the poynts they contayne true Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raysed vp loosing the sorrowes of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it Now if our belief of Scripture and contents therof be only probable we cannot be certaine that the contrary assertions or objects are impossible or that it was impossible he should be holden of it since possibility of being true is excluded only by a contrary certainty and whosoeuer belieues any poynt only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability and much less to possibility for the contrary part Coloss. 1. V. 21. 22. 23. And you wheras you were sometyme alienated and enemyes in sense in euill works yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him if you continue in the Faith grounded and stable and vnmoueable from the Gospell which you haue heard which is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen Obserue that the Apostle not only speakes of a Faith which is stable and ground of immobility but also declares that such a Faith is necessary to be reconciled to God from being alienated and enemyes and to be
particular motion of Grace which irresistably drawes it Therfor from certainty of Faith we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will or perfection of Charity You preâ—â—â—d to belieue or know wit◠〈…〉 to be obayed in all things and coâ—â—â—equently that the woâ—â—d 〈…〉 ouercome you may know with certainty that the morall 〈…〉 â—ments forbidding Actions repugnant to the light and law of naturaâ—â—eason are to be kept You cannot but know certainly in generall that all sinne is to be auoyded You teach that men euen by euidence of reason are to belieue with infallible certainty that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued These things I say you belieue or know with certainty and yet I hope you will not grant that you cannot but obey God in all things and so ouercome the world that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements that you cannot but auoyde all sinne that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion Therfore you must yield that certainty in the vnderstanding doth not inferr a necessity in the will and so still be forced to answer your owne argument 65. In the meane tyme I cannot but note how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather though contrary one to an other and euen to your selfe For example of Pelagianisme that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done which takes away the necessity of Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost I sayd that the will may performe but wheras you teach further that it must of necessity do so you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme by taking away Freewill which the very Socinians defend so farr that to make men free they make themselues sacrilegious in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe who conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace or by infused justifying Faith but your doctrine must take it away by euery certaine knowledg though it be but naturall or by Historicall fallible Faith and historicall Faith according to Caluinists is common to all Christians And yet in another respect you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme and puritanisme that Faith once had can neuer be lost which is against moderate Protestants and yourselfe with Socinians For if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity and the victory ouer the world and sinne Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne is absolutely secured 66. Neither can you answer that your Objection goes not against all Faith but only impugneth an infallible Faith For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse as we haue obserued aboue concerning them who are aduanced to certainty and spirit of obsignation or Confirmation which are as many according to you who liue as they belieue as also 〈…〉 â—postles and those who heard our Sauiour preaching or 〈…〉 miracles yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty that there is a God and that he is to be obeyed must of necessity worke according to his knowledg which if he doe he cannot loose the belief of God nor euer become an Atheist which I feare is too much against experieÌ„ce You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine that only Faith justifyes seing as they so you teach that it necessarily brings with it charity and good works And to this same purpose I still vrge your owne assertio concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only and other Christians by some other meanes V. g. justifyng inherent Grace or with Faith Hope and Charity and therfor you must deny that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith 67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying Charing is the effect of Faith if therfor the cause Were terfect the effect would be perfect For the Habit of Charity being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost is not the effect of Faith or of any Acts of our will no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe But if you speake of the Acts of Charity they proceede from the Habit of Charity from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance which is freely offered by God and freely accepted by the will but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith whose office is only to direct and shew the object without any necessitating influence S. Paule sayth 1. Cor 13.13 The greater of these is Charity and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause Or if you say that Faith is not the totall but only a partiall cause of Charity which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe then by what logike can you infer that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause lesse perfect than it selfe Rather according to your discourse joyned with the words of S. Paule that Faith is less perfect than Chatity we must say thus Charity is the effect of Faith and therfor feing the cause is imperfect the effect must be imperfect which is directly opposite to your inference and intent Besides from what Philosophy can you learne that when some cause or condition concurrs to the production of an effect not by it selfe but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes that such a cause or condition can by it selfe alone produce such an effect But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity doth it follow that it must do so irresistibly and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all or to produce a more or lesse perfect one Remember your owne distinction and words to Char Maintayned in your Pag 172. N. 71. That a man mâ—y fall into some errour euen contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irr-sistibly so that he may learne it if be will not so that he must and shall vhâ—ther he will or no. Nâ—w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you poâ—â—â—y 〈…〉 it with your dâ—â—trâ—ne of free wâ—ll in betiâ—uing if it be â—ot of 〈◊〉 nature And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture conclude God may teach and the Church not learne God may lead and the Church be resrachry and not follow 68. Now I retort this Argument and aske why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught and which once he belieued and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly and who can
or liuing as we ought is the cause of faith and as faith is the cause of Charity to which all being obliged they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof which you say is faith Wherfor vpon the whole matter your probable faith remaines only to such as keepe not the Commandements nor liue as they belieue which if they did God would rayse them higher to a certainty For thus you say Pag 37. N. 9. God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be truing and effectuall to true obedience and rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty Therfor a primo ad vltimum the weakest Faith if it be effectuall to obedience will bring men to certainty Therfore none de facto want such a certainty except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience And further seing you confess yours not to be certaine it must follow that it is not effectuall to true obedience otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty 73. But this is not all that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt Remember your doctrine Pag 379. N. 70. and elswhere that repentance necessary to saluation requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all viâ—es and the effectuall practise of all Christian vâ—rtues which whosoever performes exercises very perfect obedience and shall not fayle of being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners For if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience and so fall not into great sinne or truly repent by your kind of repentance he must passe to a certainty of Faith and so all in state of saluation both Saints that is who haue not sinned mortally and repentant sinners cannot want the spirit of Obsignation as you call it and certaine Faith Why then do you deceiue the world and delude poore soules with a fallible faith or perswasion and not absolutely proclaime to the world that infallible Faith is necessary since euen according to your grounds it is necessary for all sorts of people 74. Now all your Objections and my Answers being vnpartially considered let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them of demonstratiue conuincing inuincible cleare and the like and what reason you had to say P. 326. N. 4. These you see are strang and portentuous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fame haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and Piety sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity And therfor I must intreat and adjure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it 75. I answer S. Paule had good reason to say Scientia inflat 1. Cor 8.1 Knowledg puffeth vp it is a poysonous quality making the person swell his Arguments and all that he does or sayes swell and emptyness appeare greatness it is a multiplying glasse that stirrs vp in mens fancyes strang and huge apparitions from nothing But Sir remeber that your ObjectioÌ„s make no more against Vs Catholikes than PictestaÌ„ts who profess ChristiaÌ„ Religion to be infallible and I belieue will not belieue your bare word that these consequences are cleare Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting though resisted that is by a no-doubt as I haue shewed it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne it must bring with it Charity so perfect that we can make no progress therin For my part I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good as I haue shewed more than sufficiently though yet I must add that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine be strange and portentuous in themselues yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such For besides that the very same consequences which you deduce from our doctrine follow from your owne assertions as I haue proued answer I beseech you these few Demands 1. Whether it be more convenient that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity or that it should be compatible with a voluntary sinfull damnable not only Doubt but positiue assertive Errour as you teach Pag. 368. N. 49. and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy as I observed aboue or that it may stand with an assent that probably it may be false or with a preparation of mynd to forsake it if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it thaÌ„ you conceive your selfe to haue for it which for ought you know may happen as I shewed above 2. Whether it be worse that all should of necessity be perfect in charity by an Infallible Faith or that none can be perfect as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather That Faith is only probable and fallible and yet that the measure of our victory over the world and of our charity must be taken from Faith which you say is the cause of charity and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause Besides your brethren the Calvinists believe that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith and then seing according to your owne words if the cause be perfect the effect must be perfect and that the cause of charity is in their opinion perfect that is a sirme and certaine Faith it followes that their charity must of necessity be perfect and that no just man can make any progress therin 3. Whether it be more absurd to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes Or whether it be worse to teach that one cannot breake the commandements which you against all truth impute to vs Or that he cannot keepe them euen with the assistance of Gods grace which is the common doctrine of Protestants Thus then it is not our doctrine but the errours of you and your brethren that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity And what a Paradoxe is this A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity as yon are pleased strangly to speake directly against the admonition of S. Peter 1. Pet 5. cui resistite fortes in Fide whom
make vs evidently see what we belieue yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God and therfor say I with an Assent more certaine than can proceed from humane Authority or meere Arguments of Credibility 3. Divers great Philosophers hold that Accidents are not only dispositions to the substantiall Forme but reall causes therof immediatly producing it as they are instruments of the Principall substantiall Agents and make vp as it were one totall Cause with them According to this Philosophy your instances make against your selfe and do confirme the Doctrine of some grave Diuines that if we consider the Arguments of Credibility not as they are mere inducements precedent and disposing to Faith only shewing the object therof but as they integrate the Formall object or Divine Revelation we must say that they are elevated and raised vp to be part of the object and immediately causes of the Assent of Faith not of their owne force or taken alone but joyned with and conveying to our vnderstanding the Divine Revelation wherby they grow to be the voyce and testimony or as it were reall letters of God speaking to men by them For which cause S. Paule Heb 2.4 affirmes miracles to be a certaine speach of God saying God withall witnessing by signes and wonders where Theodoretus sayth that God by miracles giues a testimony to preaching Miracles therfor are in some manner the very voyce of God Whence S. Austine Ep 49. Quaest 6. absolutely sayeth God speakes by wonderfull workes And Marc vlt it is God cooperating and by signes confirming what they spoke And Ioan 10. Christ our Lord sayd concerning his owne workes They give testimony of me Therfor say these Divines Arguments of Credibility may be raised above themselues And so your examples and instances make nothing against vs but do confute your selfe Which contradicting of your selfe as in many other occasions so heere also forces me to stay yet a little in observing a couple of your contraryetyes or contradictions 81. The one is in these words Pag 329. and 330. If you speake of an acquired rationall discursive faith these Reasons which make the object seeme credible must be the cause of it If you speake of a supernaturall infused faith then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes and then that which was sayd must be sayd againe c Do not these words distroy themselues Or what sense can they beare An acquired rationall discursive faith caused by Reasons which make the object credible and a supernaturall infused faith infused by the former meanes that is by the Reasons which make the object seeme credible If an acquired rationall discursive faith be caused by the Reasons which make the Object credible and a supernaturall infused faith be caused by the same meanes and Reasons how do you distinguish a faith so acquired from a faith in the same manner infused Or rather how can it be a supernaturall infused Faith if it be caused by the same meanes by which an acquired discursive faith is caused In a word how is the same faith acquired and supernaturally infused 82. Your other contradiction I fynd Pag 36. and 37. N. 9. And Pag 112. N. 154. in both which places you grant to some a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence and yet in the former places you say of such men that the spirit of obsignation or confirmation makes them know what they did but believe Now if they know that they did but believe how is their certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence seing you put such a knowledg as is more than Faith which implyes obscurity and consequently such a knowledg is indued with evidence and yourselfe Pag 325. N. 2. saie He that doth barely and meerly believe doth never know and that science and knowledg are synonymous termes Therfor you speak of an evident knowledg and then I say how comes their certainty of adhesion to be beyond their certainty of evidence Or how can you speake of a certainty of adhesion beyond the certainty of evidence Who Pag 330. N. 7. say That power which infuseth into the vnderstanding assent must also infuse Evidence into the object and looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object If at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object which is in the Assent how can the Assent be beyond the evidence of the object 83. To these your contradictions I add your saying Pag 37. N. 9. What God gives as a reward to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is an other and what he will accept of out of grace and favour is yet an other To those that believe and live according to their faith he gives by degrees the spirit of Obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe He requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be living and effectuall vnto true obedience In which words you distinguish three sorts of persons which yet according to your owne words must fall to be the same First of them who believe and live according to their faith 2. of those who performe what is required of them as their duty and 3. of them whose faith God will accept out of grace and favour For to believe and live according to their faith to have a faith effectuall to obedience and working by love is required of all as their duty such a faith I say is required and will be accepted by the law which God hath prescribed Matt 19. V. 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements and no less will be accepted out of Grace and Favour Otherwise it should be and not be required and so your triple distinction of persons destroyes it selfe and ends in one only sort 84. I would gladly go forward to your other Objections but first you must give me leave to confute and turne against your self a saying which hath too much of the insolent and injourious against true Christian Faith in these words Pag. 329. N. 7. Your Faith if you please to have it so let it be a free necessitated certaine vncertaine evident obscure prudent and folish naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall assent 85. All this groundless insulting I will retort against your self eveÌ„ out of your owne grounds aÌ„d joyntly will shew that it belongs nothing at all to our Faith First your Faith is free and necessitated Free if you will stand to your owne express words Pag 329. N. 7. that there is obedience in it which you say can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disâ—bâ—dience as there is not where
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamentall as thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
that the alteration of the Sabboth from Satterday to Sunday is not proved by scripture but is acknowledged to be an Apostolyque Tradition to be perpetually observed sett tymes of Fasting and from certaine meates appointed not only for politique order but for spirituall considerations the primacy of one over the Church in seuerall Nations and Kingdomes vnwritten traditions necessary to be observed blessing of our meate and forhead with the signe of the crosse and further vse therof in the publike liturgy about which Joannes Creecelius in his descriptio refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae c Printed Magdeburgi An 1603. Pag 118. giveth testimony of the Lutherans doctrine saying We do not disallow the signe of the holy Crosse if once or twice without superstition it be freely vsed in the Divine Service yea if in private our meate and drinke be-signed therwith For when we goe to bed or rise we signe our selves with the Crosse according to the institution of Luther and other godly men And Joannes Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc Commun Pag 636. saith Luther sayd Having made the signe of the Crosse God defend me c As also the Communion-Booke in the tyme of King Edward the sixt penned by advise and approbation of Cranmer Latimer Ridley and other Protestant Divines of that tyme printed Ann 1549. Fol 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse And Fol 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse 92. These Poynts and more than these which I omitt Brierley doth punctually demonstrate divers Protestants to hold with vs against their owne Brethren which I haue more willingly set downe that Protestants may see how little reason they haue to esteeme the very name of Papists odious since many of their greatest Divines are Papists in so very many and chiefest Poynts and which ought not to passe without reflexion even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seeme most Superstitious and for which they are brought vp in contempt and hatred of our Religion and vs. If our Catholique Religion were as beggarly as that of Protestants which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Poynts we might easily encrease our number with addition of as many Protestants as we haue rehearsed and of many more than we can easily reckon Certaine it is that Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Poynts of moment against vs but that joyntly they must wound their owne Brethren if indeed they did vnderstand what they say and did not think the name of Papists to be a sufficient cause of hatred whatsoever that name doth signify wherof many are very ignorant But for my purpose I conclude that Scripture alone cannot be cleare seing Protestants in so many and so important matters especially in those very particulars wherin they pretend to differ from vs are indeed so far divided among themselves as that they fall to joyne with vs with whom nothing but meere necessity and force of evident truth could moue them to agree And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with vs shews that the Scripture is not cleare at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their owne Brethren sō their disagreeing among themselves doth convince the same For how can men if with sinceryty they seeke the truth be so divided having before their eyes one and the same cleare and evident Rule as they pretend scripture to be 93. If any for avoyding the premises adventure to say that those learned protestants who affirme the Ancient Fathers to stand for vs do not vnderstand the meaning of their words ād that for the same cause perhaps protestants do not agree with vs nor differ among themselves so much as their writings not well vnderstood make shewe To this answer although I might reply with those words of Tertullian in Apologet Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur c No man will lye to his owne shame but rather to his owne credit we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves then their denyall against themselves as also I might say that the testimonies of protestants for the sayd purposes are so evident so many of so different persons and delivered not incidently or by some other occasion but of sett purpose at large and as I may say in cold bloud that they cannot with any modesty be avoyded yet I will only say and the Objection deserves no other answer that if the writings of mē which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture and proportioned to the weakness of humane vnderstanding be so hard and obscure we ought even from this Objection to conclude that scripture alone cannot be evident Thus the Lutherans do grievously complaine against the Calvinists (a) Gerardus Gieskenius a Lutheran in his Book de veritate Corporis Christi in Coena contra Pezelium Pag 93. so charges the Calvinists because say they you alledge Luthers words against his meaning In like manner the same Lutheran Charges them for that they (b) Vbi supra Pag 77. endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta which teacheth the Reall presence to be Zuinglian that is against the reall presence exclayming therat if this thing had bene done in Arabia America Sardinta or such like remote Countryes and of former tymes this vsurpation of fraud and historicall falshood were more tolerable But seing the questiō is of such things as be done in our owne tymes and in the sight of all men who with a quiet mynd can endure such lyes In like manner Fulk in his Answer to a counterfaite Catholique Artic 17. Pag. 61. is not ashamed to say that the Lutherans and the Zuinglians do both consent in this That the Body of Christ is receaved spiritually not corporally with the hart not with mouth which all the world knowes to be manifestly vntrue Thus also Dr. Field of the Church L. 3. C. 42. Pag 170. sayth I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquetary Presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice call Sacramentaryes And Dr. Potter Pag 90. is not afrayd to say that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in forme and phrases of speech then in substance of Doctrine even in the maine controversy between them about Consubstantiation which after occasioned that of Vbiquity The maine truth on both sides is out of Controversy that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithfull communicant and that in his whole person hee is every where The doubt is only in the manner how he is in the symboles and how in Heaven and Earth which is no part of Faith but a curious nicyty Is it all one to be exhibited
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
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
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
a confused aggregatum per accidens of truths different in nature and kind and as I may say to incorporate with Gods word Apocryphall Writings which are so called not because they may not be true but because they are not Divine as the dictates of humane prudence are not and do you not cosen people who belieue that all is scripture which is contayned in S. Paules Epistles You say the Bible hath bene confirmed by Miracles I aske whether all truths coÌ„tayned in it haue beene so coÌ„firmed or no If they haue seing you say here N. 31. it is impossible God should set his hand and seaâ—e to the confirmation of a falshood at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God and growne to be matters of Faith though we should falfly suppose they were not such in vertue of his teaching theÌ„ as our Saviour sayd If yee will not belieue me beleeue the workes Joa 10.38 If you say all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles it is as good in order to vs as if none had bene so confirmed since the Miracles themselves do not specify what in particular they confirme and what not and so we can only belieue in generall that some Points contayned in the Bible are Truths but this is not enough to belieue with certainty any one in particular Besides all this S. Paul in counselling virginity counsells the same which our B. Saviour had done before as is recorded Matth 12.12 and therfor he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such and spoke not out of humane prudence as you would haue him If it be objected how then doth he say I speak not but our Lord Ianswer It cannot be sayd I speak not by inspiration but our Lord for what an incongruous speach were that But I speak signifyes I counsell advise command or permit by antithesis to those other words V 10. Not I giue command but our Lord. You know Catholiques are wont to alledg this Chapter of S. Paul to proue as a Point of Faith the counsell of perperuall virginity and yet never any of our Adversaryes haue excepted against this Argument by saying S. Paul professes to deliver that matter only as a dictate of humane reason and not as a Divine Revelation which had been a cleare and vnanswerable reply that we could not proue by that place perpetuall virginity to be more perfect as a Point of Faith if they had bene of your mynd and they might easily haue told vs that we could not proue an Article of Faith by words which the Apostle himself professes to containe but a humane dictamen But so it is They who once forsake Gods Church learne only and practise and teach others this lesson Evill men and seduce â—s shall prosper to the worse erring and driving into errours 2 â—â—noth 3. V. 32. 42. I would gladly make an end of this matter But first I must aske how you can say N. 32. If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speakes and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote For who ever pretended that S. Paules judgment was Gods command Contrarily when his judgment is that such a thing is no command of God we do most firmely belieue that it is no command because we are sure that he was no less assisted by Inspiration in saying V. 12. it was no command speake I not our Lord than when V. 10. he declared a command not I but our Lord. 43. Now vpon the whole matter it followes out of this your Errour that although all things necessary to be believed were contayned in scripture yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule or any Rule at all for Christian Faith seing we cannot be absolutely certaine when the writers therof set downe divine Revelations or only dictates of humane reason yea and as you say S. Paul was not inspired by God when he Counselled virginity and consequently might haue erred therin so we cannot be sure that indeed he gaue any such judgment or counsell but that as in counselling so in writing and setting downe that counsell he was no more assisted by Inspiration thaÌ„ in giving it And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintayned about the sayd Texts of S. Paul Chap 4. N. 9. Pag 44. Certainly if the Apostles did sometymes write out of their owne private judgment or spirit though it were granted that themselves could discerne the diversity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniversall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleare that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although each mans private spirit were admitted for direction of himself yet it were not vse full for teaching others Thus you say P. â—41 N. 27 A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme Pag. 62. N. 25 that Bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliver Divine Revelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing therof if once we deny their vniversall infallibility A fourth Errour is set downe in your Pag 62. N. 24. and Pag 141. N. 27. where you profess to know no other meanes to be assured of the scriptures incorruption then you haue that any other Booke is incorrupted and that your assurance of both is of the same kind and condition though this for scripture be farre greater for the degree both Morall assurances and neither physicall or Matematicall 44. If this Doctrine may pass for true it will necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of scripture must not only be of the same kind but be farr less for the degree of it seing the bookes of prophane Authors haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men Atheists Pagans Jewes Turkes and Christians wheras the Bible was either vnknowen or impugned or not much regarded by all except Christians and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian Tymes stood so with the Jewes that the Old scripture was once lost as some say or at least lay hid and Christians had not those commodityes to transcribe faithfully Copyes of the new Testament which pagans had for publishing their Bookes Whence it comes to pass that we find not so many divers readings in Cicero Virgill and other prophane bookes as vve find in scripture To which if we add the many vulgar Translations and Editions to what vncertainty shall we be brought if we proceed only by humane morall assurance of scripture without any living visible Guide the Church so directed by
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
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
thither If then we may learne all things necessary to salvation without a writing or Scripture as you grant we may and as all Christians must grant for the tyme before Scripture was written we must say therfor it is not necessary for that end and though it were necessary yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine as every man may vnderstand it by himself seing that end of vnderstanding may be compassed by another meanes which is the Declaration of Gods Church And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other Therfore say I we are to belieue that the Church on which we must relie ought to be infallible that so we may trust her without danger For if her Authority be fallible vncertaine and doubtfull yea if de facto she erred she is liable to your censure Pag 37. N. 20. A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non◠at all 10. But here againe Pag 93. and Pag 94. N. 108. which is put to two § § You object how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church or what that Church hath decreed seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted and that even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning diverse things whether they be de fide or not Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church than of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them and are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if they were translated into vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine And N. 109. you say How shall an vnlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of any Decree seing a Councell depends on a true Pope which he cannot be if he came in by Simony or were not babtized which depends on the due Intention of the Minister or were not rightly ordayned Priest and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character 11. This is the summe of what not only you but other Protestants are wont to object and it is the vtmost of your endeavours But will be easily answered by laying this ground That both in this and other Poynts we must distinguish between the certainty of a generall ground or foundation and the certainty of that particular meanes by which we actuate or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground which vnless it be first belieued with certainty cannot haue strength to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance mattters of great difficulty You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edisice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a sever thing that the foundition shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation 12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples That we may prudently yield Obedience Piety and Observance and be obliged to doe so towards Magistrates Parents and Superious it is sufficient that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment that they are such because that judgment is sufficient to apply the generall ground that Obedience Piety c are due to Magistrates Parents c But if that Generall ground were not certaine as an evident dictamen of Reason but only probable men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes but rather would stand for their liberty by pleading possession and following that other dictamen of Reason Equity and Justice Meliorest conditio possidentis To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient that we haue good Reason though not certainty that we are just or in the state of Grace But if this generall Principle The just shall be eternally rewarded were not certaine few I feare would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty before that which they enjoy certainly and for the present You say Pag 172. N. 71. The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly But if one were not certaine of this generall ground That God of his part teaches every one sufficiently men would not easily thinke themselves obliged or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things which they belieue cannot be learned vnless God alone teach them sufficiently if they had no certainty that they can hope for any such teaching And to come neerer to our purpose If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible though it were supposed to be casually true vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God but that indeed it be so For Infallibility of Assent signifyes two things the one that de facto the thing for the present is true the other that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples as cannot in any possible case or occasion consist with falshood or vncertainty which could not be verifyed vnless Scripture in truth and reality and not only in opinion or belief be the word of God For though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth yet in some other it might faile and cause vs to fall into some errour But if we make another kind of supposition That one is told by his Pastour or Prelate whom he might prudently belieue that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God ād in itself is such and consequently infallible in that case he of whom I spoke may exercise an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible and is such indeed
pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching § 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and § 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatè by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to
Fundamentall for the contrary reason that men may be ignorant of them or not belieue them explicitely without sinne and damnation yet so as they cannot without a grievous sin be rejected or denyed whensoever they are sufficiently represented to our vnderstanding as Thruths revealed by God For in that case they grow to be Fundamentall so farr as they cannot be denyed without damnation And in this sense there is no distinction between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Objects of Faith Which is so evident that Potter Pag 240. sayes It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And Pag 212. he teaches that such Points may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity This he sayth and this every one must say who vnderstandes the termes For to reject what one believes to be testifyed by God is to thinke that he either deceives or may be deceived 2. But then How comes it to passe that when we object to Protestants that all of them cannot be of the same Church and Faith and consequently cannot all hope to be saved seing it is evident they contradict one another in many Points of Faith wherin one side must deny a revealed Truth which they confess to be damnable how I say come they to answer not that those Points wherin they differ are not sufficiently proposed to all of them as revealed by God and so all of thē may be excused by ignorance which were a poore and vncertaine and as it were a casuall Answer depending on particular circumstances of persons capacityes c for which no generall Rule can be given and they themselves often pretend some of them to erre against Scripture when it is no lesse evident in some not Fundamentall than it is in some Fundamentall Points and so ignorance cannot excuse them but they are wont only to answer that they agree in all Fundamentall Points though they differ in Points not Fundamentall placing the difference not in the different proposition of the Object but in the nature or waight of the Objects or Articles themselves For if they speake of the proposall alone they can put no difference betwixt not Fundamentall and Fundamentall Points seing no man can belieue either kind of those Points till they be sufficiently proposed as Potter Pag 246. expresly sayth Sufficient proposition of revealed Truths is required before a man can be convinced For if they be not propounded to me in respect of me it is all one as if they were not revealed And for want of this he excuses the Apostles who believed not the Resurrection which is a Fundamentall Point of Faith and therfore sufficient proposall is necessary in Fundamentall Articles What then will Protestants finally answer If they disagree in Fundamentall Points they differ in the substance of Faith and in things necessary to salvation If they differ in Points not Fundamentall yet sufficiently proposed they differ also in things which Potter affirmes to be Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for salvation What then remaynes but that they cannot be of the same substance of Faith howsoever they answer 3. We see then how vaine false disadvantagious and contradictory to Protestants themselves this distinction is as they apply it seing they must say as we haue proved that errour in Points not Fundamentall is against the substance of Faith and destructiue of salvation and yet that it is not such in regard they affirme that all of them may be saved notwithstanding their errours in Points not Fundamentall which they cannot imagine to be possible if an errour in such Points be damnable as we haue heard Potter confesse it to be and you also acknowledg the same in a hundred places of your Booke 4. Yet for the present let vs haue the patience to heare them say that they agree in Fundamentall Points and therfore in the substance of Faith But then every one who desires satisfaction in this matter and hath no minde to be fed or rather fooled with an emptie sound of words in the ayre cannot chuse but instantly demand what those Fundamentall Points are in particular 5. For it cannot be discerned whether all Protestants or a few or any agree with others or the same man at different tymes with himself in Fundamentall Points vnless it be knowen what those Points be What would it availe a sicke person to tell him that there are some infallible remedyes for his disease if you cannot tell him what they are Catholikes haue often and earnestly vpon most just and necessary causes vrged Protestants to exhibite a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points and learned Protestants haue endeavoured to give it but with so great disagreement among themselves and ill successe for their purpose that their paines proved advantagious to vs Catholikes alone and shewed that no such thing could be done as appeares by their disagreeing Catalogues set downe at large and in particular by Cha Ma Part ◠Chap 3. N. 19. yourself Pag 408. N. 35 say Protestants do not agree touching what Points are Fundamentall 6. But in the meane tyme what is your opinion Or how do you defend Protestants and yourself In a very strang manner Either by contradicting them and plainly confessing that no such Catalogue can possibly be given or else by contradicting yourself somtyme saying that one can be given somtimes that it cannot Sure I am you giue vs none though certainly it is a thing very necessary to be done in the way of Protestants Pag 201. N. 19. you teach that to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls because to some more is Fundamentall to others lesse to others nothing at all is impossible And Pag 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall And Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to another is not so Which variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls and proves your request as reasonable as if you should desire vs to make a coate for the moone in all her changes And Pag 23. N. 27. He that will go about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peece of business of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And then it is apparently vnnecessary to go about it Are you not an excellent Advocate for the Protastants cause Whos 's both sayings and doings or endeavours to set downe a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points you contradict and make good in fact while you giue vs no such Catalogue and affirme in express words that it is not possible for them to do it They endeavoured and could not You both by reason and experience of their fruitless paines will not seeme to endeavour it Their endeavours shewed their judgment of the great importance
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation if they deny it to vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
Austine How familiar is it with you to overthrow yourselfe and plead for your Adversary 119. But this is not all For when S. Austine affirmes against the Donatists It is not possible that any man may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communiō of the whole world he could not ground his Asseveration vpon any accidentall vnity in Communion which might be altered and which you say de facto is taken away by Divisions and subdivisions but vpon a higher and more vniversall and stable Ground that God hath obliged himselfe never to permitt the Gates of Hell to privaile against his Church in such manner as men not only might but also should be obliged to forsake her Communion Otherwise S. Austines Argument had beene of no force and only a Petitio principii as being grounded vpon a Point which was the thing in Controversy between Catholikes and Donatists that is whether the Church at that tyme was corrupted and therfore S. Austine and other Fathers did rely vpon an vniversall ād constant ground as I also observed when I spoke of succession of Bishops And the words of S. Austine can signify no less For he saith not There is not any just cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world as if he spoke only of some present state and condition or some accidentall and changeable thing but he saith absolutely It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world wheras according to your glosse it is not only possible but you say that de facto there was just and necessary cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world This being so I now inferr demonstratively that seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world It is not possible that the Church of the whole world could fall into any errour or corruption and that Luther was a Schismatike for leaving Her Communion vpon a pretence so false and injurious to God and his Church Morover this your answer doth vndoubtedly crosse your owne conscience For you do not only belieue that there were many errours in the Church of S. Austires tyme as the beliefe of the B. Trinity the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father c but you also affirme againe and againe that S. Austine himselfe and the whole Church with him held a great errour about the necessity of the Eucharist for children wherin though you do perniciously erre and wrong that Holy Father yet in your judgment the Donatists could not be truly convinced of Schisme for leaving that Church which you hold to haue beene in an errour against Faith in a Point of very great moment Or if the Donatists could not separate from the Church of that tyme though corrupted what excuse could Luther haue for his Division from all Churches of the whole world vpon pretence of errours 120. And here that the world may see with what spirit you began to swell in leaving the Catholique Church I cannot omitt to reflect how irreligously in this Page and Section you are bold with that great Doctour of Gods Church that Conquerour of Heretiks that Champion for Gods Grace that Cherubin for knowledg and that Seraphin for most ardent loue of God glorious S. Austine 121. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Cap 5. having cited the forsayd saying of S. Austine Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world adds this other sentence of the same Blessed Saint de Bapt Lib 5. Cap 1. the most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation To which sayings of S. Austine you giue this answer Pag 301. N. 101. The second of these sentences seemes to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say that the sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there is no cause of separation implyes to my vnderstanding that there may be a cause of separation Now in the first he sayes plainly that this is impossible But by your leaue there is no such thing implyed in the words of S. Austine as your vnderstanding and will depraved by pride and Heresy moue you to apprehend And to facilitate your apprehension it made for your purpose to abbreviate or rather falsify S. Austines words which are these and are so cited by Charity Maintayned whom you had read The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation As if he had sayd in direct contrariety to your vnderstanding and false glosse it is always true that Schisme is agrievous sin but is most Manifest and Eminent when there could not be pretended any true or probable cause of separation I say any true or probable cause For you do not defend but betray the cause of S. Austine and of the Catholikes of his tyme by saying the Donatists did not deny but that the publike service of God 〈◊〉 at that tyme vnpolluted wheras it is notorious that they professed the whole Church beside their particular congregation in Afrike to haue perished by reason that Catholikes did communicate with some men who as they falsely sayd were guilty of great crimes and if they held the Church to haue perished how can you say that they pretended no cause for their separation Nay how could they chuse but alledge for their excuse a most convincing and necessary cause if it had been true the totall ruine and destruction of the Church with which therfore it was wholy impossible for them to communicate Neither can it be denyed but that they calumniated Catholikes for communicating with Caecilianus whom they falsly accused of partaking with them who were called Traditors of the holy Bible to be burnt though indeed not Caecilianus but they themselves were guilty of that crime And beside this cause which you do not deny they objected to Catholiques that they erred in believing that Baptisme might be cōferred by Heretiques and that they received without competent pennance those who in tyme of persecution had denied Christ and saieth Potter Pag 125. out of S. Austine Epist 167. That the efficacie of Sacraments depends on the dignity of the Minister that being no true Baptisme which is not given by a just man 122. As for that which you say the Donatists objected against Catholikes that they set pictures vpon their Altars and you speake of the same matter P. 334. N. 16. you cannot but in your conscience know that they meant such as were to be worshipped with idolatry which was a huge falshood and calumny and therfore S. Austine Epist 48. saith To how many did the reports of ill tongues shut vp the way to enter into the Catholike Church who sayd that we put I know not what vpon the Altar And in this I say againe you cannot but speak against your owne conscience seing you cite Optatus
esse novit Uerum est enim quod illa falsa sint No man can be sayd to know false things except by knowing they are false c But an errour is sinfull because he gives a culpable cause therof either by not vising diligence to find the truth in a matter of highest moment which is that vnum necessarium that one necessary Thing of which our saviour spoke and to which all other things are to be referred and therfore requires our chiefest and vtmost endeavour and all that may any way put it in hazard ought instantly to strike vs with a most deepe fright and move vs to fly from it tanquam a facie colubri as from the face of a serpent oâ— by reason of pride confidence in his owne witt or judgment or the like sinfull cause which must be knowne and voluntary in order to such an errour and ignorance otherwise they could not be sinfull as we haue seene out of your owne words that we cannot be obliged to that which is not in our power Now if the cause of such errour be sinfull and voluntary to say one may be pardoned of that sin without actually forsaking it is to say A sin may be repented and forgiven while one is actually persisting in the committing of it and seing to pardon a sin is to destroy it and to be committing it is to conserue it in being sin should be destroyed and conserved be and not be at the same tyme which is a manifest contradiction 20. But you say The sinner may haue Repentance of all sins knowne and vnknowne I answer You are in a great errour or inconsideration both concerning the nature of sin and of Repentance in supposing that either can sin be committed without all knowledge or that true Repentance can extend it self to a sin of which one is in Act of voluntary committing it For how doth he effactually detest and with his whole hart repent himselfe of it if he be yet voluntarily committing it And as for the other part All sin is voluntary and necessarily presupposes some kind of knowledge therof to proceede in the vnderstanding without which it were not voluntary nor vincible nor culpable but necessary and invincible or no sin at all Which being true in all sin much more must it be so in deadly and damnable sins as you affirme errours against Faith to be which require full knowledge and deliberation when they are first committed And this is particularly true in the subject of which we speake in regard that our good God whose will is that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth never failes to be frequently preventing illuminating moving and strongly inciting the soules of men to embrace the true Faith Religion and church within which he hath confined salvation aÌ„d is continually speaking so lowd as he may be clearly heard aÌ„d so stroÌ„gly as every one must confess himselfe guilty if he do not obey aÌ„d hearkeÌ„ to a voyce so sweet forcible and Divine And therfore your Contrition of all sins knowne and vnknowne comes to be a meere sixion or illusion your Repentance of sins which one is actually committing to be a plaine contradiction and both of them to containe a most pernicious Doctrine To comprise all this matter in few words When you speake of sins not knowne if the ignorance be invincible it is no sin if vincible and culpable it doth not excuse from sin the Errour which proceeds from it and therfore cannot be forgiven as long as one is committing it no more than other sins against Gods Commandements for example hatred desire of revenge c. And how can want of knowledge excuse one who either sins by that very want of knowledge or that want of knowledge is the effect of his sin that is of culpable neglect to learne as a tâ—e want is not excused from the rot by ignorance proceeding from his voluntary neglect to study 21. Perhaps some may say I haue proved sufficiently that no Protestant or other Sectary can haue true Contrition of sins wholy vnknowne or when it is committing them or while he hath tyme to amend them neglects to doe it But the difficulty may seeme to remaine what is to be sayd of a Protestant at the point of death if he come to be particularly contrite of his former culpable negligence to seeke the true Religion but now hath no tyme to discusse particular Controversyes with a firme resolution to embrace that Faith which if God spare him life he shall by his Divine Assistance find to be true To this doubt I 22. Answer First That such a one cannot according to your Doctrine hope for Salvation which is never granted without true Repentance and this cannot be had at that moment of death when there is no tyme to roote out all vicious Habits which cannot be supposed to be few in persons who for worldly respects haue not cared to seeke out the true Religion on which every Christian believes the salvation of his soule to depend Secondly This case or supposition yields as much as Charity Maintayned intended to proue That a formall Protestant cannot be saved if he persist in Protestantisme For he who is hartily sory that he hath neglected to seeke the true Faith Religion and Church and conceives an obligation to haue vsed more diligence therin doth clearly doubt whether the Protestant Religion be true and theâ—by is no more a Protestant than he can be a Christian who doubts whether Christian Religion be true it being a true Axiome in Divinity dubius in side est infidelis He who doubts of his Faith is an infidell The reason is because Christian Divine Faith is infallible and certainly true and consequently cannot consist with any deliberate or voluntary doubt neither doth Christian Faith belieue any Article of Faith with greater certainty than that itselfe is certaine Whosoever therfore doubts whether Protestants Faith and Religion be true ceases to be a Protestant or to belieue Protestant Religion to be true with that firmnes of Faith which is required for Salvation And although such a pertinent sinner be not a Catholike by the actuall beliefe of those Points conceruing which he hath no tyme to be particularly instructed yet he is really and actually a Catholike by believing in voto or desire whatsoever the Church teaches and those errours of his which before were culpable only by reason of some culpable cause or neglect to seeke the truth while he had tyme to doe it after true and effectuall Contrition of such a sinfull cause remaine errours materially only and no sins till it be in his power to examine and reverse them just as vertuous persons in the true Church may by invincible ignorance hold some errour against Faith till they be better instructed And so the finall Conclusion will be that he who effectually repents his sin committed in omitting culpably to seeke the true Church and hath no possible meanes to examine matters
may be saved not by a generall but by a particular contrition not of sins vnknowne but knowne not remaining a formall Protestant but being a reall Catholike having retracted the former malice of his sin and believing in desire all that the Catholike Church believes and so he is a Protestant neither in act seing he doubts of the Protestant Religion nor in voto or desire which is to be a professed member of the true Church and to imbrace the truth and forsake all Errour as in this present Question we expressly speake of the errours of Protestants and enquire whether they can be saved with such errours as likewise our supposition for the present is that the Roman is the true Church and so the Uotum or desire of such a penitent is to forsake the Doctrine of Protestants and to embrace the Religion of the Roman Church But then if such a one survine and come to haue tyme sufficient for seeking and finding out the truth and neglect to doe it he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin and his eâ—â—ours grow againe to be sinfull by reason of their new sinfull cause 23. Your example that poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote is either de subjecto non supponente as if the poyson of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition or implyes a manifest falshood and contradiction if you suppose that contrition can destroy that sin which one is committing Naturall or corporall poyson may stand with an Antidote but sin the poyson of the soule cannot stand with Contrition and so caÌ„ helpe no more thaÌ„ an Antidote not receyved can hinder the operation of poyson aÌ„d contrition cannot be receyved in his soule who continues the act or affection to a deadly sin And so your example turnes against yourself and this Answer proves to be a more powerfull Antidote than the poyson of your objection which therfore I hope will not poyson any that receives with it the Antidote 23. Thirdly I answer by denying absolutely the case which was proposed that he who hath sinfull errours at the houre of his death can haue true Contrition without actuall direliction of them My reason is because Contrition being a most singular Gift of the Holy Ghost as I proved in the Introduction and including the perfect loue of God is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace as therfore God in his holy Providence hath decreed that after baptisme in the ordinary course or de lege ordinaria none shall be saved out of his Uisible Church so he gives not his effectuall Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will before he endue him with true Faith in the vnderstanding that as his errours were repugnant to Faith so his Repentance and retractation may rectify them by the contrary Truths of Faith For this cause the Apostle after he had sayd God will haue all men saved which words signify the End adds and to come to the knowledge of truth as the Meanes to such an End And this being the ordinary course in vaine is it to dispute what God may doe de potentia absoluta by his absolute Omnipotency or whether there be any physicall or Metaphysicall repugnance between Contrition and Errours per se loquendo damnable since those matters wholy depend on Gods free will and holy pleasure which we cannot know by Logicall humane demonstrations but only by Revelation wherby God hath declared in generall that for Christians there is no salvation without professing the Faith of his Uisible Church and for vs to put exceptions to that generall Rule can haue no other effect than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth in tyme vpon hope that they may be saved with Errours against Faith at the houre of their death when indeed it will proue too late Neither can it be objected that at the houre of death it is not possible to examine particular Controversyes and none can be obliged to an impossible thing For the answer is easily given out of what we haue already sayd First that this ought not so seeme strang to you whose kind of Repentance is impossible at that houre of death as I haue often sayd and so we may apply against you your owne words Pag 390. N. 7. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confesse them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in tyme forsake them shall not find mercy Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in tyme who haue not tyme for rooting out all vicious habits and therfore shall not find mercy But by the way what evidenct Scripture haue you that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God seing some Lutherans and other Protestants hold and other confess that it was the Doctrine of ancient holy Fathers that private confession of sins is commanded by God and we haue heard Kemnitius teaching that even Contrition without absolution is not sufficient for pardon of sins either in act or in desire and your resolute speech to the contrary is an affirmation without any proofe Neither can Contrition be sufficient vnless it imply a firme purpose to performe all that God hath commanded wherof Confession of deadly sins is one Secondly I answer that as God is supposed at that tyme to infuse perfect contrition and change the will so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the vnderstanding and the same meanes which he vseth for the one he may vse for the other whether he doe it immediatly by himselfe or by the ministery and helpe of some second cause as a catechist or instructour or good bookes to stirre vp the species and then God may giue his grace to belieue and it would be incomparably more strang that God should giue Repentance to Christians remayning out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith than to cleare their Errours supposing he will giue them Repentance though indeed in our case there can be no true Repentance vnless all sinfull errours be rectifyed 24. That which you alledge out of the Prophet David aboccultis meis munda me cannot signify that sin can be committed without some knowledge as even Socinians confess but only that sins committed by culpable ignorance are not wont to moue vs so much to detestation and sorrow as those which are committed with full knowledg and therfore those hidden sins require a more particular light and Grace of God to present them to our soules so clearly and effectually as we may be perfectly sorrowfull for them in particular and not be deceyved with such a generall ineffectuall sorrow as you obtrude without dereliction of the sins of which men pretend to repent 25. And now I hope it appeares vpon examination of your particular errours concerning Repentance that you make it either insufficient by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits
one cannot be saved without Repentance vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is vndoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small Now what can be more evident than this consequence and conclusion And yet you say The conclusion is true though the consequence of it from the former Premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it and then you add the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance and esteemed to be so And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of and deliver it in these words God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion necessary to be decided this meanes is vniversally infallible Therfore of two that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connexion between these Propositions I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation in the Greeke Epigramme and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe judges sentence and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme Thus you But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme and his words which I haue even now alledged cleare him from your vaine imputation and fond collection He sayd expressly vnless ignorance plead excuse which makes the errours against Divine Revelation to be sinfull and damnable seing he speakes of persons not excused by ignorance Neither hath he those words which you add necessary to be decided nor those other which they esteeme a matter of Faith yea he spoke formally and expressly of two men dissenting in matters of Faith and not in Points which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith And because you thinke it impossible to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions let vs suppose some Truth to be revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two by a Propounder infallible in himselfe and by them certainly believed to be such which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned and that one of them contradicts the other and consequently by so doing opposes a Truth testifyed by God and sufficiently propounded as such And then what say you to this syllogisme Whosoever opposes a Truth witnessed by God and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by a propounder believed by the party himselfe to be infallible committs a grievous sin and so cannot be saved without repentance but in the case proposed one of the two contradicting partyes opposeth a Truth revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding by such an infallible propounder Therfore he committs a grievous sin Yourselfe here N. 13. grant that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or haue no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contayned as it happens in our case wherin we suppose that the erring party is in sinfull errour by reason of opposing an infallible Propounder of Divine Truths whosoever that Propounder be This very thing you grant also in the N. 11. where you say Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes and the partyes in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissension this were in one of them direct oposition to the testimony of God and vndoubtedly a damnable sin Which is the very thing that Ch Ma clearly affirmed And now you haue lost your jeast out of the Greeke Epigramme turned by you into a Satyre Thrice happy had it beene for you to haue been deafe dumbe and blind rather than to haue ever heard or spoken any thing or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes and wicked Heresyes of yours which openly destroy Christian Religion But there is a just judge who is neither deafe nor dumbe nor blind but heares and sees and punisheth all pride contempt and Heresy and the Approbators of them if they do not repent and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance 17. You speake N. 11. to Ch Ma in this manner You may hope that the erring Part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or vnavoydable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God and he might know were he voide of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often Concerning which words I aske how can that be a sin which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance or vnavoidable prejudice For if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable and consequently invincible and as you expressly say excusable how can the errour itselfe be sinfull Or if it be a fault as you say it is how is it not a grievous fault consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation which you perpetually profess to be damnable Or how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men 18 To your saying N. 12. That it is against Charity to affirme that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions I answer as yourselfe and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions if their not seing those consequences proceede from some voluntary vincible roote as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull and damnable when they are Effects of sinfull causes 19. In the N. 13. I will only touch in a word that in saying S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture You either grant that it is not a Point of Faith That Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid Wherin for ought I know you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants and in particular your English Church or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith which is not contained in Scripture 20. In your N. 14.15.16.17 there is no difficulty Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question wherin Ch Ma alwayes supposed that speech was of Points contained in Scripture and that a man opposed the Scripture culpably For which cause N. 17. he sayd According to Protestants Oppose not scripture there is no errour against Faith Oppose it in any least Point the
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
se loquendo of two dissenting in matters revealed by God one must oppose his divine revelation and Veracity which is evidently true but also that de facto it is so in many millions yea in the far greater part of Protestants who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony and committ a deadly sin not because others as you speak belieue a thing to be revealed by God which Ch. ma. never sayd nor dreamed but because they themselves ought to haue believed that same thing to be revealed which others did belieue to be such and indeed was such Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne and which ought to be knowne by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs fundamentally But some Protestants you say millions yea the greater part disbelieue those things which others belieue to be testifyed by God and which are and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed Therfere some Protestants yea millions and the greater part of them impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally 9. But yet that it may further appeare how much you wrong Ch Ma I must set downe his words which Chap 3. N. 3. are these The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Because till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them And the like is of Points not fundamentall which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner What could be sayd more clearly to shew that Ch Ma spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects but expressly of such as are really testifyed by God and not only believed to be such by others but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths and which therfore bring with them a most strict obligation to be believed Your little respect to truth hath forced me to be longer in this point than I expected or desired to be And I hope it appeares that you had no other cause except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants because forsooth some of them disbelieue and wittingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God Seing Cha Ma expressly required that what others believed to be testifyed by God should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe before he could be obliged to belieue which sufficient proposition being supposed yourselfe do not deny but it is a damnable errour to disbelieue any such truth 10. Your N. 18. hath two good propertyes Falshood and Confusion or Obscurity You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know and there you stop but Charity maintayned added these words but that some of them disbelieue and directly and wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall c Now I pray is there not a maine difference between ignorance or a not knowing or Nescience of a thing which another believes and a positiue opposition or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes How many truths are there which men do not know and yet erre not against them be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them by way of Affirmation or negation but they carry themselves privatively or in a certaine manner passively or abstractively as if there were no such objects 11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth You say I would gladly know whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also Answer I vnderstand not well what you meane by differing in profession only or in opinion also Do you meane that they make profession of differing in opinion when indeed they do not differ This were to dissemble and ly in matters of Religion But whatsoever your meaning be I answer that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants differing in opinion one disbelieving what another believes as you confesse out of His words But you are willing to raise difficultyes where otherwise none could appeare 12. But then you say If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions It being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and belieue the contrary or know it and not belieue it And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I answer this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they do not belieue 13. Answer Though it be much against my inclination yet truth commands me to say that here you shew either great ignorance or else write directly against your owne knowledge where you will needs confound pure ignorance with positiue Errour the difference of which I shewed even now and what Logician is ignorant of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is that is a meere want of knowledge of some truth or a positiue errour contrary to it And by your leaue your saying If they differ in opinion they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions is so far from being true speaking of pure ignorance that it implyes contradiction to say He who errs is ignorant seing to be purely ignorant in the sayd division of ignorance is one member into which ignorance is divided and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance For it were to say one hath no knowledge at all and yet hath a false knowledg or a privation is a positiue entity and a Nothing a Something Your objection He who errs knowes not the contrary Truth and if he knowe not the truth he is ignorant of it is a meere mistake or equivocation For that he who errs knowes not or is ignorant of the contrary by a pure
different natures yea there should be as many formall differences of Faith as there are different Points which men belieue according to different capacities or instruction c And therfore we must say that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall but vpon Gods Revelation equally or vnequally proposed And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things equally revealed by God it is evident that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently loose all Faith and vnity therein In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith which is taken from the Formall Object and which to oppose is the proper cause of damnation for erring persons in all Objects whether they be great or small like or vnlike of themselves 21 Now in this discourse what false Propositions what confusion can you finde You say Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits and therfore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit bespecall from the Act and Object inspeciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 22. Answer To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits seing the Discourse of Cha Ma concerned only the Act of Faith whereby we belieue some Truths because they are revealed by God and vpon this ground he proved that every contrary Act is damnable and a grievous sinne which cannot be verifyed of Habits which of themselves are not sinnes Now who can deny that an Act of Faith takes its nature Essence and specification as Philosophers speak from the Divine Revelation And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts is taken from their Act and their Object as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr Potter Pag 139. saith expressly The formall Object or reason of Faith the chiefe Motiue mark motiue the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves is only divine Revelation Obserue that Divine Revelation only is the first and last into which Faith resolves without mentioning that it is taken from the Act yea excluding it by the word only only Divine Revelation And Pag 143. he saieth The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or perswasion or at the most acquired humane beleef Which words not only declare the Essence of Divine Faith but also express how by that Essence it is distinguished from other things and in particular from humane Faith perswasion and opinion as Cha Ma saied the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence therof Thus you see that Cha Ma spoke truth in affirming that the Nature and Being of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense and to this purpose 23. What doe you meane in saying If the habit be generall the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall If the Habit be speciall from the Act and Obiect in speciall I am very sure that every Habit and Act exists in particular though their Obiects be never so generall and so the Acts to which Habits incline are particular Acts producible by those Habits and nothing taken only in generall can be producible 24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied that our motiue to belieue is the Divine Revelation and which is more you affirme the same heere That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him And yet you strangely object That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 25. Answer First The motiue or Formall Object of which we speak is not an efficient cause in respect of the Habit or Act of Faith but if you will reduce it to one of the foure kinds of Causes which are commonly assigned some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca and perhaps others will say that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause because Aristotle defines the efficient cause to be Principium motus and you confound motum and motivum or motion and motiue Secondly Though a motiue were an efficient Cause your Argument That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect is of no moment For no man ever dreamed that the motiue or formall Object of Faith is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico but that the act takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object and essentially is or includes a Referēce to it as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things and consequently as you say extrinsecall to them For this cause C Ma saied not that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes Which words signify a difference not an identity seing a thing is not saied to take from itself but to be its owne Essence Do not yourselfe say that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object And yet I suppose you will not grant that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits as intrinsecall to them Especially seing naturall Habits are essiciently produced by Acts and Acts by Habits even supernaturall Acts as by their efficient causes And therfore according to your words are always extrinsecall to the effect And so you answer and confute your owne selfe 26. You doubt what Cha ma did meane by these words Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects But his meaning is cleare that Gods Revelation is the same whether it be applyed to Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and can no more be disbelieved in one kind of these Objects than in another it being no lesse impossible that the Supreme Verity and Veracity can testify a falshood in
cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qûae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot
appeares out of S. Matth. Cap. 28. where some things belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee c. and other to the Church in them or to them in the Church as beside Teaching and Baptizing N. 19. Behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world which signifyes that he would be with them in their Successours who were to continue for all Ages after the death of the Apostles with whom he could not be present in themselves to the consummation of the world who were not to liue to the worlds end as you say heere Did he or could he haue saied to your Church which then was not extant I haue many things to say vnto you but you cannot beare them now So we may apply the like words Did he or could he say to his Apostles I will be with you to the worlds end when they were not to be extant But the truth is when our Saviour spoke to his Apostles our Church was then extant in the Apostles and the Apostles were to liue to the worlds end in their successours and so our Saviours promise is fulfilled of being alwaies with the Apostles in their Successours 81. You object to Charity Maintayned that In the very text by him alledged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is saied the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come But this is answered by what hath bene saied already Though it were granted that some thing was promised to the Apostles alone it doth not follow that the whole promise was so restrained as I haue shewed aboue Besides Christian Faith teaches vs many things to come as the comming of Antichrist the generall judgement and signes precedent to it The Resurrection of the dead The eternall punishment of the wicked and reward of the just c For this cause S. Anselm apud Cornelium a Lapide in 4. Ephes N. 11. teaches that by Prophets in that Text are vnderstood interpreters of Scriptures because per eas futura justorum gaudia malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant If by shewing things to come you vnderstand the Gift of Prophecy Do you hold it as certaine that every one of the Apostles had that Gift as that they were infallible in matters of Faith Are you certaine that every Apostle could haue written the Apocalyps of S. John So that indeed if you will needs haue a full parity between being led into all Truth and knowing of things to come you will be found not to be certaine that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith Morover it is to be observed that to be infallible was essentiall to the office of Apostolate or teaching the Church as the Gift of Prophecy is accidentall and was communicated to others as we read in the Acts as also it was accidentall to speak all toungs to haue bene called immediatly by our Saviour as S. Matthias was not and yet was an Apostle to haue inflicted Censure of Excommunication with some visible punishment and the like extraordinary ornaments or Priviledgs And therfore no wonder if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church though the knowledg of things to come were not though indeed de facto God hath and ever will communicate the Gift of Prophecy to his Church as is certaine by the vndoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages You see now that neither Charity Maintayned nor other Catholique writers cite the saied text by halfes as you affirme N. 72. seing the latter clause of shewing things to come makes nothing against them nor alters the sense of the text as I haue shewed But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect whom you impugne while you would perswade men that Charity Maintayned and generally our writers of controversies when they entreate of this Argument cite this text perpetually by hafes seing Dr. Potter Pag 151. cites this very same place and leaves out those words will shew you things to come for which you accuse vs of citing that sentence by halfes especially if you call to mynd that he brings that text to proue that the Church cannot faile in Fundamentall points which as I saied were no proofe if it were meant of the Apostles only as you would proue it was by the words omitted by the Doctor no less than by C Ma he will shew you things to come To all which I add that seing you say that text concerned the Apostles only it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points and therfore seing the Doctor confesses it to be verifyed in the vniversall Church she must be infallible in all Points But it is no wonder that you contradict your Client Potter since you so perpetually contradict yourself 82. In your N. 71. you seeke to divert me to the controversyes about publique service in an vnknowne tongue and communion vnder both kinds But you know Catholique Writers haue answered all that can be objected against vs in these two questoins and whatsoever you can alledg if it were of any moment as it cannot be it could only shew that Scripture even in that which to you seemes so plain is indeed obscure seing so many learned holy and laborious men see no such evidence as you pretend yea they are certaine that your pretended cleare interpretation is an Heresie Yet because you alledge against vs without any cause a greeke word edoke I must not omitt to tell you with truth that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament shamefully falsify the Greeke Text 1. Cor. 11. V. 27. saying in their Translation Whosoever shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord wheras the Greeke word signifyes vel or and so you should say Whosoever shall eate this bread Or drinke the cup c. which fraud you vse to proue the necessity of Communion in both kindes 83. Your N. 73.74 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered Only I may note that you put some Objection in a different letter which in Cha. Ma. I find not The Promise that the Holy Ghost was to remaine with the Apostles for ever was not restrained to yet is verifyed in them because they remaine for ever in their successours as you will say they remaine in their Writings Your friged interpretation of ever that is for the time of their lives is confuted by what hath bene cited out of S. Matthew Chap. 28.20 I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world And surely the end of the world signifyes a larger extent than the end of their lives Nay you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them to the tearme of their life but it seemes you make it not absolute but only conditionall even for that short tyme. For you say The spirit would abide
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
And thē further it followes that you must recall your Doctrine and say that if the Church may fall into errour not damnable to her it must be in case it be invincible and yet it cannot be invincible if she haue sufficient Assistance to lead her into all not only necessary but profitable truth and therfore you must deny that she hath such an assistance and we must conclude that by not erring in any fundamentall point she performes her duty to God and so can not be forsakē without Schisme For you doe not deny the proposition of Ch Ma N. 20. that the externall Communion of the Church cannot be forsaken as long as she performes the duty which she oweth to God Besides how doe you not contradict yourselfe in saying Who is ther that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety For if the errours be such as you describe they come to be concerning things not only profitable but necessary as vndermining the very foundations of Religion and therfor to say she erres culpably in them is to say that she erres damnably and fundamentally and you must say she erres culpably if she haue assistance sufficient to avoid them By this discourse and other points handled heretofore is answered your N. 62.63 as also your N. 64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73 only it is to be observed that N. 64. you paralell the security of private men from errour in fundamentalls to that of the vniversall Church And N. 68. you will not see the reason of a consequence deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very cleare if you had set downe his words which are these N. 22. P. 185. Since it is not lawfull to leaue the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoyded in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and errour and I add what the Doctour sayth Pag 39. that it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces of Divine truth you must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errours not fundamētall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven and that it is a great vanity to hope or expect the contrary in this life And is not this a cleare consequence The Church cannot be forsaken for sinnes because they cannot be avoided in this life therfor seing errours at least in not fundamentalls cannot be avoyded in this life the Church cannot be forsaken for them 20. To your N. 72. it is sufficient to say that although we must not doe evill to avoide evill yet when a position is such as evill cannot but follow of it ex natura rei it is a clear argument that such a Position includes falshood and errour Now as Ch. Ma. proves N. 24. your grounds doe of their owne nature giue scope to perpetuall Schismes and divisions And then the consequence is cleare that they are false and erroneous His words which you by abbreviating make ineffectuall are they who separate themselves will answet as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errours though they be not Fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errours which two grounds being once layd it will not be hard to inferr the consequence that she may be forsaken 21. All that N. 74.75.76.77 you vtter with too much heate is answered by putting you in minde that Ch. Ma. never affirmes that Protestants say the cause of their separation and their motiue to it was absolutely and independently of any separation precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation as you impose vpon him for which foolish reason even Catholiks might be sayd to be Schismatiks from their owne Church because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation but that supposing their separation from vs vpon other causes for example pretended corruptions they pretend to be excused from Schisme and say they did well to forsake her because they doe not hold that she is cut of from hope of salvation Which to be true he C Ma shewes out of Potters words And yourselfe P. 284 N 75. say to C Ma can you not perceaue a difference betweene justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation And whosoever reads Ch Ma N. 27. will finde that which I say to be true For he expresly sayth that both they who doe and doe not cut of the Church of Rome from hope of salvation agree in the effect of separation Only this effect of separation being supposed without which ther could be no imaginable Schisme they doe alleadge for their excuse that they did it in a different manner because the one part of which we speake conceaved that though they did separate yet they should be excused from Schisme because they did not cut of from hope of salvation the Roman Church ād so this was the motiue or reason for which they judged they might separate from her without the sinne of Schisme and consequently they would not haue done it if they had not had this reason or motiue and consideration wherby to excuse themselves Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother I doe well to leaue you because you are my Brother or of a subject saying to his Soveraigne Lord I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you to be my lawfull Soveraigne are meere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words who sayth truly against Potter that if one should part from his Brother vpon some cause and excuse such his departure from fault because he still acknowledges him to be his Brother or if a subject should disobey his Soveraigne vpon some motiue and then should thinke to justify his fact by saying he still acknowledges him to be his lawfull Soveraigne C Ma I say affirmes that such an excuse may justly seeme very strange and rather fit to aggravate then to extenuate or excuse the departure of the one from his Brother and disobedience of the other to his Souveraigne And yet this is our case For both the violent and moderate Protestants agree in the same effect of separation from the Roman Church and disobedience to her Pastours with this only difference that the one sorte sayth that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation and the other sayes she is not and pretend to be excused from Schisme because they say so though they separate themselves from her no lesse then the other doe 22. To your N. 78.79 I answer that when the Fathers and Divines teach that
advice of humility it being time enough for them to know and reflect that S. Peter was their Head by that expresse future declaration of our Saviour Joan 21. 38. Thirdly You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest because the Scripture sayth God hath appointed first Apostles secondly Prophets but sayth not God hath appointed First Peter then the rest of the Apostles which to speake truth is a childish reason it being cleare that the Scripture in that place doth not compare the Apostles among themselves but with other degrees in the Church as Prophets Doctours c. Otherwise you might proue that one Magistrate can not be subordinate and subject to another if one for example should say the commonwealth consists of Magistrates and people because forsooth in that division you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate aboue another 39 Fourthly you say S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles and if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles it was a wonder that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself as that mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour But I beseech you can you belieue that S. Paul would say of himself that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles absolutely and in all things He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners and laments that he had bene a persecutor of Christians and will you needs vnderstand him to say that in such respects he was not inferiour to the other Apostles who were innocent of those things He was an Apostle as the others were and that is all you can vnderstand by his words and all that makes just nothing to the purpose But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour No more doth he giue any title to S. James though he were Bishop of Hierusalem which surely deserves some honour if the simplicity of those blessed tymes had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles Yourself say heere S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not haue supreme Authority over them and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first in order and honour how then will your answer your owne objection that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him without any title of honour seing particular honour was due to him even by our Saviours command For from what other cause could it proceede But shall I disclose to you a mystery on which it seemes you do not reflect Our Saviour whose words are operatiue and deeds by calling S. Peter Cephas or a Rock had also made him such and saied Tues Petrus Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church so that to name Peter is to call him the Foundation and head of the Church and all Christians and with what greater title of honour could any body mention any Creature we may therefore say of S. Peter as S. Ambrose saieth of the title of Martyr De Uirginibus Lib. 1. Quot homines tot praecones qui Martyrem praedidicant dum loquuntnr To name one a martyr is a title of honour and so it is to name Peter for the foresaied Reason 40. You conclude Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more fooleries say I not probabilities that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine Right Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church vniversall Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be the foundation of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 41. Answer If you suppose as for the present you doe that S. Peter by our Saviours institution and consequently by divine right was Head of the Apostles you should not say what incongruity is there but what incongruity is there not if we say that the Bishop of Rome might succeed S. Peter only in the Government of that particular Church For what can be more incongruous and foolish than to imagine that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles and the whole Church only for his life time when there was no need and as we may saie litle vse thereof seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians and Power to preach the Gospell through the whole world and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter must haue relation to future Ages after the death of the Apostles and if it must still reside in some in whom can you imagine it to be seated except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter to remaine in his Successors appeares by his words which I haue pondered aboue as also because he speakes of the Sea or Chaire of Rome as of the Rule whereby to judg of heresies and Schismes not only for the tyme of S. Peter but for ever and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only and saith Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c and so goes on till his owne ayme And I would gladly know by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church was so particular and personall to him that it ceased with his person Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith with your congruities or incongruities With your Socinian topicall humane vaine discourses What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S Peter was living I will not examine heere whether or in what manner Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before S. Peters death wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth they were not Romanae sedis episcopi but only Coadjutores I beseech you remember what you saied N. 98. and 99. interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus that in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop and certainly it is no consequence The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome and supplying
his place and depending on him was not head of the Church while S. Peter did liue therefore he could not be his successor in that vniuersall power after S. Peters death Neither do you so much as offer to proue that S. Peter ever relinquished his being the particular Bishop of Rome and therefore how can you say the Bishop of Rome did succeed S. Peter while he was living seing no man can succeed a Bishop while that Bishop lives and is still Bishop of that particular Church in which an other is pretended to succeed him 42. Your Argument That as in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first is to giue it the right name a nothing or a meere equivocation in the Metaphor of a foundation whereas a Foundation in our case signifies a Head or chiefe and if you hold it incongruous that foundations in this sense should succeed foundations you must say that no King Prince or magistrate can without incongruity succeed one an other Besides The Apostles were Foundations of the Church by their Preaching and Teaching for not all of them wrote and they were foundations of the Church before any one of thē wrote and I hope you will not say it is incongruous that Preachers and Teachers should haue Successors Was not Judas an Apostle and was not S. Matthias chosen not only after him but expressly for him or in his place or to succeede him For so S. Peter Act 1. applies that place of Scripture Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter and the prayer of the Christiās was Ostende quem elegeris ex his duobus vnum accipere locum ministerij hujus Apostolatus de quo praevaricatus est Judas But what if your very ground or foundation That in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations be false as certainly it is For if you suppose the first foundation to faile or be taken away may an other be substituted and succeed it The Apostles were Foundations but being mortall they faild and needed successours to supply their absence and so your similitude returnes directly vpon yourself If you will follow the metaphor of a foundation in all respects how do you say S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the foundations of it seing you may saie in building it is incongruous that a foundation should laie a foundation Will you haue it laie itself Why do you not also say that as the foundation is vnder the building so the Apostles and all Pastors Prelats and Superiours are inferiour to the rest of the Church It seemes though the Scripture should be vnderstood as indeed it ought that Christ intended that S. Peters successours should haue jurisdiction over the whole Church you will controll God himself and say It is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation You say els where vntruly that Ch. Ma. trifles about the word foundation which you confess to be metaphoricall and ambiguous and yet heere you ground your whole Argument vpon that metaphor ill applied as beside what hath bene sayd not only the Apostles but Prophets also are called in Scripture foundations super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum and will you except that in a building it is incongruous to haue more than one firme and perfect foundation as certainly the Apostles were But I spend too much tyme in confuting such toyes as these 43. Your N. 101.102 haue bene answered already The Donatists for the cause of their separation pretēded not only that the men frō whome they separared were defiled with the contagion of the Traditors as you say but also that they erred in Faith in believing that Baptisme might be conferred by Heretiques to omit other things Your calumnie about a picture hath beene confuted heretofore Your N. 104. containes no difficulty which may not be answered by former grounds 44. To your N. 105. I answer that seing Potter accounts the errours of the Roman Church to be damnable to such as are not excused by Ignorance Ch. Ma. had reason to say the Doctour condemnes all learned Catholiques who least of all men can plead Ignorance It is evidently true that as Ch. Ma. P. 205.206 saith these two Propositions cannot consist in the vnderstanding of any one who considers what he saies After due examination I judg the Roman errours not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable and yet I judg that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them For according to true reason one is to judg of things as indeed they are in themselves and therefore if in reason I judg them not to be fundamentall in themselves I must in reason conceyue that they are notfundamentall being held by mee neither doth there in this case intervene any lye seing one professeth that not to be damnable which he holds not to be damnable But where doth Ch. M. say as you cite him These Assertions the Roman errours are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errours to hold and confess them are absolutely inconsistent For it is impossible that any man can hold that which he knowes to be an errour because even by knowing it to be an error he holds it not but dissents from it He saieth only that it cannot be damnable to hold an error not damnable which is very true but saieth not that one can hold an errour which he knowes to be an errour 45. You make Ch. Ma. speak in this ridiculous manner to Protestants If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed ād deposed by judging those errors not damnable and then you triumph and spend many words in proving the very same thing which Ch. Ma. never denied but expressly affirmed namely that the errours of the Roman Church vpon a fals supposition that she had any were not damnable These be his words in the sayed N 206. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedie but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you dayly affoard to such other Protestants as you tearme brethren whome you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictorie propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Is this to say If you erred in thinking that your Church holds errours this errour might be rectified by judging these errours not damnable Is it not directly the contrary and supposes errours though they be not damnable Or doe you thinke that Ch. Ma. holds Protestants not to
she proposes you would not haue wanted evasions by saying we should belieue her as far as she agreed with Scripture or in Fundamentall points only as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church 16. Ch Ma Pag 251. N. 18. sayth The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy which he proves by some textes of Scripture as 1. Joan 2.19 They went out from vs And Actor 15.24 Some went out from vs and Actor 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things This say you is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church ād yet doe not separate from every some body for they doe not separate from themselves and their owne Associates it is a signe that their is great difference betwixt some some body and orhers some body betweene separating from the Church or the Congregation of the Faithfull and frō every other some body But if I proue these propositions every Heretik separates from the Church and every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik to be convertible you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy This is easily done by taking your owne grant That Heretiks do always separate from the Church For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth if the Church also may erre against any such truth there is no necessity that an Heretik should separate from the Church but may very well agree with her in such error and so the first part of your assertion that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church would be false or if the Church cannot erre every one who separates from her in matters of Faith must be guilty of an errour against Faith and so be an Heretik if therfore the first part of your assertion be true you must grant that the second is false and that as every Heretik separates from the Church so conversivè every one who separates from the Church in matters of beliefe is an Heretik and then it is no wonder if Scripture and Fathers assigne a separation or going out of the Church as a mark of Heresy Which may be further declared in this manner If all Heretiks separate from the Church the reason must be because there is in the Church something incompatible with their Heresy which can be nothing but the true Doctrine and Beliefe which she holds and is opposite to the error which makes thē Heretiks and which whosoever hold are Heretiks and consequently whosoever leaves the Church by occasion of such errors are Heretiks and if they had not held such errors they had remained in the Church Therefore for the same reason for which all Heretiks forsake the Church we must necessarily inferr that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks that is for the errors which they hold against the truth which the Church is supposed to belieue and if she be supposed to belieue an error an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her no more than she goes out of herself For this cause our Saviour saied Matth. 24.26 If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert goe you not forth Of which words Henoch Clapham in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag 23. sayth that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy or Schisme and not only that all Heretiks or Schismaticks goe out And now I hope you being convinced by Reason will be better disposed to receiue authority and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch Ma of which you say For the first place there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks but no Christians and Antichrists of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ Answer That S. John speakes of Heretiks will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament vpon this Chapter of S. John Uers 18. shewing out of S. Cypriā that all who separate themselves from the Church are called without exception Antichrists Pantaleon in Epist nuncupator Chrongraph saith Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis qui exierunt de electo Dei populo at non erant ex illo And in Osiander Epitom Histor Ecclesias cent 1. lib 3. cap 1. saith Nota Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur 17. The second place say you It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error when it was yet a question and not evident and therfor according to your Doctrine no formall Heresy Answer I see no such certainty as you pretend that the text Act 15.24 Some went out from vs must not speake of Heretiks that is of persons who held an errour against a revealed truth of which some might haue been sufficiently informed before the Councell and Definition or Declaration of the Apostles and that some did proceed in a turbulent and as a man may say Hereticall manner appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose it is sufficient that separation from the Church is a signe at least of a materiall Heresie or Heretique since the being a formall Heretique depends vpon individuall personall and accidentall circumstances of which to judg in particular is the part of prudence not of Faith though if once the partie know that his opinyon is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and will yet persist therin and rather leaue the Church than forsake it he cannot be excused from pride singularity and Heresie 18. You say The third sayes indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that sayes or intimates that whosoever separates from the visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Answer we haue shewed that as you say all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church so you must grant that whosoever separates for matter of Doctrine from the visible Church is an Heretique And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently going out or separation doth clearly put a particular emphasis and force therin as a mark of fals believers and seducers And this to be the sense of the Holy Fathers Ch Ma. hath proved and now we will make good his Proofes by confuting your evasions to the contrary And I must intreate the Reader to consider the words of the Fathers as they are cited in Charity Maintayned with the Inferences which he deduces from them and not as they are interpreted by you 19.
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all
errour if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue even Fundamentall points must be damnable Which words you shamefully conceale out of guiltyness that they prevented all your Answers about Ignorance or such accidentall and variable circumstances to which you sly before you gaue them Seing it appeares that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed and N. 15. you say That such Points are fundamentall Our B. Saviour saith S. Marke 16.16 he that does not belieue shall be damned And S. Paul Gal 5.20.21 having reckoned some vices and among the rest Sects concludes They who doe these things shall not obtaine the kingdome of Heaven Will you now stand vp and blaspheme and say that our Saviour and S. Paul should not haue pronounced damnation against disbelievers Sects and Heretykes without adding your limitations to wit vnless ignorance excuse or a generall Repentance obtaine pardon 21. In your N. 15. you giue a new explication of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall That these Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knoweth them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently How many things may be observed in these words First it answers not plainly to the Question of Ch Ma which was whether is there in such denyall of a Point contained in Scripture and sufficiently proposed as Ch. M. expressly speakes any distinction betwixt Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall sufficient to excuse from Heresy As certainly there is not Secondly by this distinction of yours all that is sufficiently proposed to be contained in Scripture is a Fundamentall Point and every errour in such Points must be a Fundamentall errour and destroy Faith Church and salvation and so you grant what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question though you thought not fitt to Answer it clearly and in direct termes but to involue things by talking of matters nothing to the purpose and therfore I say Thirdly Points deducible from Scripture but probably only are not Points of Faith which requires certitude but may be denyed without sin if one haue probable reason for his denyall as yourselfe confess N. 14. that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contayned in Scripture if he who denyes it knew it to be so or haue no probable reason to doubt of it Otherwise not Ch Ma as I sayd spoke expressly of Points sufficiently knowne to be contayned in Scripture that is of matters of Faith and by what logicke can you distinguish Points of Faith into Points which are of Faith and points which are not of Faith as things which are deduced from Scripture probably only are not matters of Faith as we haue seene out of your owne words Doth not Logick teach that the Diuisum must be affirmed of everie one membrorum dividentium and will you affirme faith of that which is not Faith 23. In your N. 16. To the Question of Ch Ma whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture you answer It was never alledged to any such purpose But as in other Points so in this you speake for Protestants without any commission or warrant from them For who knowes not that nothing is more common with them than to say that Protestants may be saved and are brethren as agreeing in the substance of Faith because all of them belieue the Creed which reason were plaine non-sense if they may belieue the Creed and yet not be of one Faith nor hope of Salvation by reason of their disagreement in other Points Or what availes it them to agree in necessariò credendis all which you say the Creed containes which yet is very false if they differ in agendis in Articles of Faith by which they are directed for Christian Practise Seing Protestants differ not only in credendis but in agendis Howsoever I take what you giue that the Creed cannot be pertinently alledged as if believing it alone Protestants may disagree in other Points and yet remaine Brethren and so by this very answer you grant what Charity Maintayned intended to proue that disagreement in any one Point of Faith be it great or little cannot stand with Salvation on his side whose errour is culpable As wholosome meate taken alone may nourish but if the same man receiue poyson he shall not escape death in vertue of that meate which otherwise might haue conserved him in life and health Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu One damnable errour is enough to worke perdition though a man belieue all Truths except that which is contrary to such an errour 22. I haue no more to say about this first Chapter except only that you might haue comprized the substance therof in few lines or words if you had not perverted the state of the Question by flying to accidentall and changeable circumstances and vsing needless and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances CHAP XI The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion 1. I Find by experience That the reducing of your dispersed and often repeated discourses to some heads frees me of much vnnecessary labour which otherwise must haue beene spent in speaking to every particular Section of yours For in this Chapter I find litle but either passion or calumny or begging of the Question or what is answered already till I come to your N. 30. which also containes nothing but a matter of fact whether Brierly and Ch. Ma and other Catholique Writers haue abused Hooker in saying that he teaches that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God by the testimony of scripture itselfe but by some other meanes namely the Church For my part I haue read and considered the place cited by Ch Ma out of Hooker Lib 3. Sect 8. and find that you are like those charitable people who are content to want one eye vpon condition that their adversary be deprived of both You are willing that Hooker contradict Himselfe yourselfe and evident reason itselfe rather than he should seeme to favour vs. I say he must contradict reason which can never proue that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration as I know you will not deny seing all the contents of Scripture might haue bene set downe in writing without the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost You say Pag 114. N. 156. If there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may belieue a Booke of S. Austines to containe nothing but the truth of God