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
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
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
other must be true Indeed Sir I know nor how to reconcile those two sayings of Charity Maintayned because I cannot see how possibly they could ever fall out or be at variance For what disagreement can be imagined in these Propositions Some errours are not Fundamentall as not being repugnant to Fundamentall truths and every Fundamentall errours must haue a contrary Fundamentall truth or rather haue they not a most cleare connexion and parity that as an errour not Fundamentall is opposite only to a truht not fundamentall so a fundamentall errour is opposite to a fundamentall Truth And the reason of this is given by Ch Ma in that very place which you cited because according to Philosophy the privation is measured by the forme to which it is repugnant 172. Thus vpon the whole matter it appeares That your affirming our falsely supposed errours to be damnable and so to yield sufficient cause of deserting our Church is turned against all Protestants who confessedly de facto maintayne damnable errours That although our errours were never so damnable in themselves yet they could not be so to vs who are excused by invincible ignorance That Potter and you contradict yourselves in talking of pardon for that which is no sin and That you overthrow your distinction of errours which you say are damnable but not Fundamentall while in the meane tyme you make all damnable errours to be fundamentall and which for that cause if you will speake with consequence must destroy the vnity of Faith and Church and hope of saluation And therfore seing you grant that there was a Church when Luther arose it followes that indeed she was not guilty of any errour even not Fundamentall and that Luther and his followers were formall Schismatiks in leaving her communion vpon a false and impossible supposition or pretence of errours 173. Object 16. Pag 260. N. 22. you speake thus to Charity Maintayned wheras you say That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church and from thence collect that there must be a knowne Church from which it is poâ—sible for men to deparâ— I might very justly question your Antecedent and dâ—sâ—â—e you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well aâ—d vision of the Church as from it A separation not of a Part from the Wâ—ole but of some Parts from the other And if you liked not this Definition I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome which of the Parts was the Church and which was divided from it And Pag 271. N. 51. You define Schisme A causeless separation of one Part of the Church from another 174. Answer I haue already sayd enough against this Definition of yours yet because you add an Objection about Schismes in the Church of Rome and because I shall haue also occasion to add somthing to what I sayd aboue I thinke best to answer this Objection here also though by the same occasion it will cost me the labour of repeating some of those things which I haue already delivered If then 175. You haue no certainty in favour of your new Definition but only say why not rather or at least as well c why are you not content with the old one And then why do you object thâ—t which your selfe must answer for the old one But there lyes a snake vnder this smooth grasse and covertly you reach poyson vnder colour of milke Socinians make small account of the Church and Her Authority and would haue such an equality as might giue freedome for every one to follow his one fancy and begin a new Church and when all is done to say They divided not from the Church but one part from another and they themselves being one Part may as well as the other be called the Church and the other be as truly sayd to be divided from them as they from the Church and in a word all must come to be Substantives and independents in matters of Faith and Religion Thus your definition comes to be well connected with your saying That Luther and his fellowes departed not from the Church because still they remained a part of it and they departed not from themselves Thus also you would avoide that vnanswerable Argument of Charity Maint Part 1. Chap 5. N. 35. That seing there was a Division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose and that that Church cannot be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him before whose tyme she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part we must say that he divided himselfe and went out of Her Which is to be a Schismatike or Heretique or both Thus you may taxe S. John 2. Jo 19. saying they went out from vs and aske why rather from vs that is from the Church than that they made a Division of the Church dividing one part from another But indeed your glosse cannot agree to S. Johns text For these words They went out of vs do not only signify that there was a Division but that one part went out of a whole and not the contrary And the same Objection you may make against the Text Act 45.24 Some went out from vs. And Act 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things But as I sayd you may easily be confuted by the same reflection which I made vpon S. Johns words These Texts are vrged by Chaâ—ity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 251. to proue that separation from the vniversall Church is a marke of Heresy which he also proves out of Vincentius saying Lib Adversus Haer Cap 34. Who ever began Heresyes who did not first separate himselfe from the vniversality antiquity and consent of the Catholique Church Obserue that he saith from the vniversality of the Church and not a separation or Division of one part of the Church from another The same he proves out of S. Prosper Dimid temp Cap. 5. a Christian communicating with the vniversall Church is a Catholike and he who is divided from Her is an Heretike and Antichrist Behold still a separation from the Church and not a Division of one part of the Church from another And S Ciprian saith Lib de Vâ—â—t Eccles Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresyes and Schismes are bredd afterwards while they make to themselves diverse conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of truth Doth not this Saint clearly declare that Heretikes and Schismatiks depart from the Church and gives the reason because they haue their beginning after the Church and so the Church departs not from them but they from the Church which is the Argument even now cited out of Charity Maintayned Chap. 5. N. 35. S. Thomas 22. Quest â—9 Ar. Corp defines Schismatiks to be those who willingly and wittingly divide themselves ab vnitate Ecclesiae from the vnity of the Church S Hierome vpon those words Tit
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
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
do you N. 81. say to Him of the same words Seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seemes to be vniversally infallible meaning to yourself Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion But of the intention and meaning of Charity Maintayned in alledging the saied Texts of Scripture for the infallibility of the Church we haue saied enough already 107. I wonder you are so vnjust as to say we proue the Church to be infallible because she is infallible seing our Doctrine is this That we first proue the Church to be infallible and then infer that whatsoever she teaches being true and that among other points she teaches one is her owne infallibility we may beleeue it even for her Authority as I shewed you must say the same of Scripture if once you belieue it to be the word of God CHAP XIII THAT THE CREED CONTAINES NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED IN ANSWER TO HIS FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. REpetition of the same thing will not I hope seeme either needless or fruiteless when it is necessary for some good purpose and effect I doe therfore intreate the Reader now as I haue done heretofore not to looke on the words and arguments of Cha Ma as they are cited and abbreviated and obscured and in a word disadvantaged to say no worse by Mr. Chillingworth but as they are delivered by the Author himself 2. Your first ten Numbers or Sections I omitt as contayning nothing which hath not bene answered already Only I wish you had declared what your vnderstand in your N. 2. by these words Every one of the fundamentall Rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God and therfore virtually includes an article of Faith For if those Rules be revealed they do not only virtually include an article of Faith but they are properly and formally objects and articles of Divine Faith If they be not revealed by God they are no more articles or objects of Faith than a thing not visible can be the object of our eyes or a thing without sound or not audible the object of our eares c. You say they come from God and therefore include virtually an Article of Faith If you meane they come from God as he is the efficient Cause of all things that is common to all Creatures and therefore not sufficient to include an article of Faith If they come from God as revealing and testifying them to be true they are formall Objects of Faith as I saied and do not only virtually include an Article of Faith But it may be feared that in these words there lurkes some hidden poyson as if the rules of good life and action as they are knowen by the light of naturall Reason and not as they are revealed and so become formall Objects of Faith were sufficient to direct our life for bringing vs to salvation and that no supernaturall knowledg were necessary No less obscure are your other words that Fundamentall Doctrines of Faith are such as though they haue influence vpon our lives as every essentiall Doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to belieue them and not to doe them For by these words how do you distinguish Credenda from agenda if both haue influence vpon our lives and in neither of them the act of our vnderstanding or assent is that which we doe but only it is the act which directs vs to doe other things and so hath influence vpon our lives But these things I omitt and come to 3. Your N. 11. wherin you say to C Ma Your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtile than sound a distinction without a difference There being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved Answer this last is very true For in that case there concurrs both the Affirmatiue precept of exercicing an explicite act of Faith and the Negatiue of not disbelieving any truth revealed by God But that which you ad nor no point to any man at any time in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed is manifestly vntrue For when it is proposed to ones vnderstanding that God hath revealed some Truth he may truly judge that there is no affirmatiue Precept which obliges him at that tyme to exercise any act of Faith about that partioular object and therfore may resolue to abstaine or forbeare to produce any such assent of Faith but think of something els and may haue reason to doe so v.g. if some act of an other vertue be more pressing at that tyme and yet he should sinne damnably if he did positively dissent And so at the same tyme it may be necessary not to disbelieue some Truth and yet not be necessary actually to belieue it It is disputed in the schooles whether the will can stay the vnderstanding from yealding assent to a conclusion deduced evidently from evident Premisses But no man can doubt whether the will may draw our vnderstanding from a positiue actuall assent to the Objects of Faith which are so obscure that they require a pious affection in the will which therfore may dissent ād are so difficult that for every act of faith we need the particular supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost and then what wonder is it that we may abstaine from doing that which is not in our sole power to performe and to which we are forced neither metaphysically as I haue shewed nor morally because we suppose there is no affirmatiue precept to exercise such an act of Faith in those circumstances It seemes you haue a mynd against all Divines to make no difference between the affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith wherof Cha. Ma. speakes Part 1. Chap 3. N. 2. and what he saieth may be applied to our present purpose and who will say That every one is alwayes obliged to be exercising a positiue act of Faith vpon all those objects which he can never disbelieue May not a man reading or hearing some part of Scripture only conceiue it per primam apprehensionem without affirming or denying as when one learnes without Booke or only considers the phrase or writes as at a copie and the like 4. You continue your discourse and say to Charity Maintayned Yet that which I belieue you would haue saied I acknowledg true that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely are yet necessary to be believed vpon a supposition that they are knowen to be revealed by God that is become then necessary to be believed when they are knowen to be Divine Revelations But Ch. Ma hath no reason to accept as a favour this explication of yours which containes false doctrine as if all truths became necessary to be believed by an explicite actuall belief when they are known to be divine Revelations
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
excuse vs. If then you will stand to your owne doctrine you cannot deny but at one tyme that may consist with salvation which at another tyme is not compatible therwith The Church of God hath defined what Bookes be Canonicall and this Definition all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue and obey And even by this we may learne the necessity of acknowledging a Living Judg. All Books which are truly Canonicall were proposed and receyved by Crihstians After ward the knovvledg of some Bookes and some truths began to be obscured or doubted of or denyed by some and perhaps not by a few and those of great authority if we respect either learning or other endowments qualityes and abilityes vnder the degree of infallibility as we see there wanted not in the Apostles tyme some who were zealous for the observation of the Mosaicall Law and as these could not haue bene confuted convinced and quieted but by the infallibility of the first Councell held in Jerusalem so after some Bookes of scripture come once to be Questioned it is impossible to bring men backe to an vnanimous or any well grounded reception and certainty of them except by some authority acknowledged to be infallible which if we deny those Books which are receyved by many or most may as I sayd be doubted of even by those many and they which were receyved by few may in tyme gaine number and authority and so all things concerning scripture must be still ebbing and flowing and sloating in irremediable and endless vncertainty of admitting and rejecting the Canonicall Books And what connection or tye or threed can we haue to find out the Antiquity and truth of scripture except by such a Guide 51. And here I may answer an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 3. N. 12. which you relate Pag 141.142 N. 28.29 Some Bookes which were not alwayes knowen to be Canonicall haue bâ—ne afterward receyved for such but never any one Booke or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibâ—y assisted by the Holy Ghost never to propose as Dâ—vine Truths any thing not revealed by God! These words that you may with more ease impugne you thinke fit to cite imperfectly For where Cha Ma sayd never any one Booke or syllable desined by the Church was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall you leaue out by the Church which words yield a plaine Answer to your Objection or any that can be made Thus then you say Toneâ—ing the first sâ—rt if they were not commended to the Church by the Apoâ—â—â—es as Canonicall seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelation how can it be â—n Article of Faith to belicue them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall low then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonicall Scripture to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterward as it were by the Law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalbiess vnto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the Poynt was sufficiently discussed and therfore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the Number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable 52. Answer All Canonicall Bookes were commeÌ„ded to the Church by the Apostles for such though not necessarily to all Churches at the same instant and we pretend to no new Revelations And for your demand how then is the Church an infallible keeper of Scripture if some Bookes haue bene lost and others lost for a long tyme their being Canonicall or at least the necessity of being so esteemed I answer Your Argument is of no force against vs Catholiques who belieue an alwayes Living Guide the Church of God by which we shall infallibly be directed in all Points belonging to Faith and Religion to the worldes end as occasion shall require yea we bring this for a Demonstration that the Church must be infallible and Judg of Controversyes There was no scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy scripture was only among the people of IsraeÌ„l and yet there were Gentils in those dayes indued with Divine Faith as appeareth in Job and his friends The Church also of our Saviour Christ was before the scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one tyme but successively and vpon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and as men could be saved in those tymes without scripture so afterward also vpon condition that we haue a Living Guide and be ready to receiue scripture when it shall be proposed to vs by that Guide But your Objection vrges most against your brethren and yourself who acknowledg no other Rule of Faith but scripture alone and yet teach that the duty of the Church is to keepe scripture which being now your only Rule and necessary for Faith and salvation how doth she discharge her duty if she hath suffered some Bookes to be lost And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed Especially seing you teach against other Protestants that we receyue scripture from the Authority of the Church alone and therfor if she may faile either by proposing false scriptures or in conserving the true ones Protestants want all meanes of salvation Neither can you answer that it belongs to Gods Providence not to permit scripture to be wholly lost since it is necessary to salvation For you must remeber your owne Doctrinem that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men in punishment of their sins and then why may he not permit either true scriptures to be lost or false ones to be obtruded for true in punishment of sin and particularly of the excessiue pride of those who preferr their judgment before the Decrees of Gods church deny her Authority allow no Rule but scripture interpreted by themselves alone that so their pride against the Church and the abuse of true scripture may be justly punished by subtraction of true or obtrusion of false Bookes Beside God in his holy Providence works by second causes or Meanes If then he permit some scriptures to be lost and yet his Will be that there remaine a way open to Heaven he will not faile to do
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
one in Charity which excludes separation and Division Which words signify that all the members of the Catholique Church must be vnited in such manner as that they be not voluntarily divided one from another in Communion against Charity as we haue declared both out of Catholique and Protestant Divines You Pag 255. N. 9. cite him thus All the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be vnited in externall Communion Which say you certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man vnjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a member of the Church And diverse tymes it hath happened that particular men and particular Churches haue vpon an overvavalued difference either renounced Communion multually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church 104. Answer I haue declared aboue the difference between separation from the Church by excommunication even when it is valid and just and Division from it by Schisme But if the Excommunication be vnjust and invalide the party censured remaynes still a member of the Church and partakes of all common suffrages being really in her Communion though he may be obliged to abstaine from some actions in foro externo and to be haue himselfe as if he were truly excommunicated But Schisme is a voluntary disobedience ād separation from the Communion of the Church against Charity Separation by excommunication is voluntary only in causa in the sinne for which it is imposed Division by Schisme is voluntary in itselfe as being the very Division itselfe from the externall Communion of the Church You speake very confusedly in saying That particular men and particular Churches either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both of thē continued members of the Catholique Church If you meane only a verball separation as I may tearme it wherby one saith or threatens that he will haue nothing to doe with the other you do but trifle if afterward no effect follow vpon such threates or words For in that case we may say Protestatio contra facta nihil valet But if really one part separate from the other in Sacraments Liturgy publike prayers and worship of God then for preventing further inconvenience or a Schisme among faithfull people the supreme Pastour vicar of Christ and Successour to S. Peter must interpose his Authority giue Sentence and command the erring party to submit which if he refuse to do he will grow to be divided not only from the particular Church which he opposed but from the vniversall Church whose Pastour he stubbornly disobeyes and so becomes a formall Schismatike For which cause Charity Maintayned N. 5. saied The guilt of Schisme may be contracted not only by division from the vniuersall Church but also by a separation from a particular Church or Diocess which agrees with the vniversall Put case twoe particular diocesses or Churches refuse to communicate one with an other when occasion offers it selfe those twoe are neither members one of another nor agree in externall Communion yet they may agree with the Vniversall Church and soe agreeing in a third come to be vnited amongst themselves One parte of a community is not a member of another part but of the whole Body with which it is supposed to communicate and so you will find that to be a member of a Community and to participate in externall Lommunion of the same do goe pari passu and that therfore your Objection had no force except to proue as indeed it doth the necessity of a living Judge in Gods Church to prevent Schismes and command Vnion and to giue vs a Rule to judg what true Schisme is and when it happens For which cause S. Hierom Lib 1. contra Jovin affirmes that S. Peter was chosen to be Head of the Church to take away occasion of Schisme Inter duodecim saith he vnus eligitur vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio 105. Object 9. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Cap 5. N. 3. saith Euery heretike is a Schismatike which you say N. 8. he must acknowledg false in those who though they deny or doubt of some Point professed by your Church and so are heretiks you continue still in the Communion of the Church 106. Answer It is a shrewd signe you want better matter who object such triffles First though we should suppose Charity Maintayned to haue sayd every Heretike is a Schismatike and that Mr. Chillingworth saith the same as indeed he doth Pag 339. N. 20. in these words Heretiks I confesse do alwayes separate from the Visible Church Either you must absolue Charity Maintayned from your owne accusation or else condemne yourselfe and answer your owne Argument For if every Heretike do alwayes separate from the Visible Church every Heretike must be a Schismatike But yet Secondly Charity Maintayned in the place you cite affirmes nothing of his owne but only alledges S. Thomas 22. Quest 39. Ar. 1 ad 3. And therfore you cannot blame him if he cite that Saint aright as I am certaine he doth for I haue the Booke vnder my eyes at this present and find the citation to be very punctuall Neither is your objection of any force against S. Thomas For whosoever denyes or doubts of any Point defined by the Church as you will say the same of any Point evidently contained in Scripture and professes exteriourly such his errour ceases to be a member of the Visible Church and of our Communion not only in Faith but also in Sacraments and Liturgy from which he is excluded by such a profession as I proved aboue that persons of different Faith cannot communicate in the publike worship of God Besides Excommunication inflicted vpon every Heretike divides him from the Church by a particular new title If you suppose his Heresy to be meerly internall as it is incompletly Heresy in order to a Visible Church of which we speake so also inchoatiuè it excludes him from externall Communion that is it deprives him in the sight of God of merit to communicate in Sacraments and if he approach to them it is to his owne dānation and if the Church could judge de occultis he might be expelled from thē In the meane tyme he does as a theefe making vse of stolne goods and so still there runs such a proportion between Heresy and Schisme as that every heretike is a Schismatike completely or incompletely perfectly or inchoatiuè according to the degree of his being an Heretike 107. Object 10. Pag 274. N. 56. you say Though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther and his followers forsooke the whole corrupted Church or the externall Communion of it but only that he forsooke that part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsooke not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves were and I suppose you will not go about to perswade vs that
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
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
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
to giue vp his owne And when or where did all Churches vnitedly and joyntly offer vp this vniversall supreme Authority to the Bishop of Rome 32. To the authority cited by Ch Ma out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. Heresies haue sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause than for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God You answer that S. Cyprian spoke not of Cornelius but of Himself and yet you confess N. 91. that Goulartius a learned Protestant grants that it is meant of Cornelius and Pamelius in his Annotations vpon this Epistle of S. Cyprian brings divers Arguments to proue the same Neither can it be denyed but that in his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae he affirmes Heresies to spring from not acknowledging one Head S. Peter vpon whom our Saviour builded his Church Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia Cathedra vna monstretur Which is so manifest that the Protestant Chroniclers cent 3. col 84. lin 59. say Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse vr Lib. 1. Epist 3. which is the Epistle cited by C. Ma. and of which we now speak And Lib 4. Epist 9. c. But although it were granted that S. Cyprian in his Epist 55. did speak of a particular Church it is cleare that for avoiding Schisme in the whole Church there is a necessity of one Head if for that cause one Head be necessary in every particular Church as heretofore we cited out of S. Hierom that among the Apostles one was chosen vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio And even Dr. Covell a learned Protestant in his examination c. saieth How can they think that equality would keepe all the Pastors in the world in peace and vnity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure vnity and obedience Otherwise the Church should be in a farre worse case then the meanest commonwealth To which purpose he alledges that Sentence which we mentioned out of S. Hierom vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio You say whether the words of S. Cyprian condemne Luther is another Question Answer If those words condemne Luther of Schisme for withdrawing his Obedience from the Pope which Ch Ma affirmes and you for the present do not deny it evidently implies that the Pope was Superiour to him and all other Christians 33. In your N. 99.100 you labour to elude these words of S. Optatus alledged by C. Ma in the same N. 36. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that in the Citty of Rome there was first an Episcopall chaire placed for Peter wherin Peter the head of all the Apostles sat whereof also he was called Cephas in which one chaire vnity was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire aÌ„d that he should be a Schismatique and a sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect an other lib 2. cont Parmen You tell vs That the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction and that Optatus proves them Schismatikes for so doing vpon this ground of one Bishop in one Church But whosoever reads Optatus will clearly see that he expresly speaks of the Catholique not of a particular Church which he saieth hath quinque ornamenta or dotes the first whereof is a chaire on which chaire of the Catholique and vniversall Church he saith S. Peter first sat whom he calls the Head of all the Apostles whereof he was called Cephas in which one Chaire vnity was to be kept by all Now I beseech you is it not cleare that Optatus speaks of S. Peter and of his Sea not as of a particular Bishop of a particular Church but as Head of the Catholique Church by whose meanes vnity was to be conserved and that Schisme and Heresie are to be discovered by opposition to that chayre which he calls singularem cathedram and may well signify not only a single or particular or individuall chaire but indeed singular by reason of singular preeminence and priviledg aboue all other Churches For this cause he speaks thus to the Donatist Parmenian Contra quas portas inferorum claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum cui a Christo dictum est Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum portae inferorum non vincenteas Vnde est ergo quod claves regni vobis vsurpare contenditis qui contra cathedram Petri vestris presumptionibus audacijs sacrilegio militatis To what purpose should he insist vpon these priviledges of S. Peter and his Chaire if he meant no more than what is common to all particular Churches Or how doth he afterward proue that they whom the Donatists opposed were â—in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est But why do I labour to proue that which our Adversaries your Brethren are forced to grant For the Centurists cent 4. col 556. lin 17. alledg Optatus calling Peter Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur And indeed not only in the place alledged but also lib 7. he calls S. Peter caput Apostolorum And Fulk in his Retentiue Pag 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit c He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles You say When Optatus stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and sayes that from thence he was called Cephas Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greek word Kephale wheras it is a Syriack word and signisies a stone But what imports it vpon what ground he called him head seing he called him so and believed him to be such Beside that which is the stone Rock or Foundation in a materiall Building in a mysticall Body is the Head as the vulgar saying is Homo est arbor inversa The roote is to a tree as the Head is to a man and therefore our Saviour sayd I will build my Church vpon this Rock after he had saied to S. Peter that he was a Rock In this manner the Centurists Cent 3. col 85. say that Origines Tract 5. in Matth dicit Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum and yet that Hom 17 in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem where we see that S. Peter is called both a Foundation and a Prince Chiefe or Head 34. But now giue me leaue to say plainly that it is intollerable in you to impugne by Reasons which you expressie only call probabilityes a matter delivered clearly in Scripture testifyed by Antiquity embraced by Nations and corroborated by the great Plea of Possession peacefull and tyme out of mynd against all which what wisdom is it to oppose meere Topicall Socinian conjectures You saie First That S. Peter should haue authority