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
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
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
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
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 cannot be saved without Repentance vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is vndoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small Now what can be more evident than this consequence and conclusion And yet you say The conclusion is true though the consequence of it from the former Premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it and then you add the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance and esteemed to be so And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of and deliver it in these words God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion necessary to be decided this meanes is vniversally infallible Therfore of two that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connexion between these Propositions I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation in the Greeke Epigramme and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe judges sentence and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme Thus you But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme and his words which I haue even now alledged cleare him from your vaine imputation and fond collection He sayd expressly vnless ignorance plead excuse which makes the errours against Divine Revelation to be sinfull and damnable seing he speakes of persons not excused by ignorance Neither hath he those words which you add necessary to be decided nor those other which they esteeme a matter of Faith yea he spoke formally and expressly of two men dissenting in matters of Faith and not in Points which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith And because you thinke it impossible to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions let vs suppose some Truth to be revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two by a Propounder infallible in himselfe and by them certainly believed to be such which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned and that one of them contradicts the other and consequently by so doing opposes a Truth testifyed by God and sufficiently propounded as such And then what say you to this syllogisme Whosoever opposes a Truth witnessed by God and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by a propounder believed by the party himselfe to be infallible committs a grievous sin and so cannot be saved without repentance but in the case proposed one of the two contradicting partyes opposeth a Truth revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding by such an infallible propounder Therfore he committs a grievous sin Yourselfe here N. 13. grant that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or haue no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contayned as it happens in our case wherin we suppose that the erring party is in sinfull errour by reason of opposing an infallible Propounder of Divine Truths whosoever that Propounder be This very thing you grant also in the N. 11. where you say Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes and the partyes in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissension this were in one of them direct oposition to the testimony of God and vndoubtedly a damnable sin Which is the very thing that Ch Ma clearly affirmed And now you haue lost your jeast out of the Greeke Epigramme turned by you into a Satyre Thrice happy had it beene for you to haue been deafe dumbe and blind rather than to haue ever heard or spoken any thing or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes and wicked Heresyes of yours which openly destroy Christian Religion But there is a just judge who is neither deafe nor dumbe nor blind but heares and sees and punisheth all pride contempt and Heresy and the Approbators of them if they do not repent and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance 17. You speake N. 11. to Ch Ma in this manner You may hope that the erring Part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or vnavoydable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God and he might know were he voide of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often Concerning which words I aske how can that be a sin which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance or vnavoidable prejudice For if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable and consequently invincible and as you expressly say excusable how can the errour itselfe be sinfull Or if it be a fault as you say it is how is it not a grievous fault consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation which you perpetually profess to be damnable Or how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men 18 To your saying N. 12. That it is against Charity to affirme that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions I answer as yourselfe and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions if their not seing those consequences proceede from some voluntary vincible roote as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull and damnable when they are Effects of sinfull causes 19. In the N. 13. I will only touch in a word that in saying S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture You either grant that it is not a Point of Faith That Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid Wherin for ought I know you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants and in particular your English Church or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith which is not contained in Scripture 20. In your N. 14.15.16.17 there is no difficulty Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question wherin Ch Ma alwayes supposed that speech was of Points contained in Scripture and that a man opposed the Scripture culpably For which cause N. 17. he sayd According to Protestants Oppose not scripture there is no errour against Faith Oppose it in any least Point the
is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose Belike if it had been to the purpose that is against you you would not haue let me say even so much Truth togeather 9. In your N. 48. you speake to Charity Maintayned in these words Out of liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnderstanding to assent Yet not withstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes So the Scripture only to those that haue the eye of Faith Thus you But it is reason that the words of Charity Maintayned should be set downe as they are and not lamely and imperfectly as you giue them These are his words Part 1. Chap 1. N. 12. Pag 52. Let us suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnder standing to assent yet the similitude proves against themselves Protestants for light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therfore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith or as Potter sayth Pag 141. To all that haue eyes to discerne the shinning beames therof that is To the believer as immediatly after he speakes Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light therof and consequently there must be some other-meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith which can be no other than the Church 10 This is the discourse of Charity Maintayned and you must not contradict it vnless you will proclaime your selfe a Pelagian that we are able by our naturall forces or vnderstanding to belieue as we ought in order to Eternall Happynesse as the Eye of our Body can by the naturall abilitie thereof see colours For as I shewed in the Introduction we being not able of our selves to produce any one Act of supernaturall Divine Faith need the Assistance of the infused Habit of Faith which is a Theologicall Vertue or somthing equivalent to it to enable our vnderstanding for the exercise of every such Act and therfore the aggregatum of our vnderstanding and that Helpe is for the believing of Scripture as our corporall eye is for seeing of light or colours And then Scripture will correspond to light our vnderstanding with that supernaturall Helpe to our eye and the Act of believing to the Act of Seeing This being premised it will be found that either your Objections vanish into nothing or that you must be guilty of Pelagianisme as Christianity Maintayned sayd Pag 70. You say If Scripture do moue and determine our vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its owne effect now this very assent is nothing els but Faith and Faith nothing els than the vnderstandings assent And therfore vpon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith vnto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture itselfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the vnderstanding to assent that is to belieue them and the verityes contained in them 11. This is your Objection which goes vpon a false ground and doth not distinguish between the Act and Habit of Faith or somthing eqvivalent to it in actu primo enabling our vnderstanding to exercise supernaturall Acts of believing For Scripture doth moue and determine our vnderstanding only to the Actus secundus or an Act of Faith but not to the Habit of Faith or somewhat equivalent to it which must answer to our corporall eye which cannot be produced by Scripture If you had considered this Truth you would not haue gone forward and sayd neither is this to say that the Eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison faith Answers to the Eye But if you will not peruert it the Analogy must stand thus Scripture must Answer to light The eye of the soule that is the vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye and lastly assenting or believing to the Act of seeing For I haue told you that our vnderstanding in order to Acts of Faith alone cannot be compared to our corporall eye which by its owne naturall force can see a proportionate object and so your whole Analogy is made voide and all that you ground vpon it Thus we haue heard even Potter saying That Scripture is of Divine Authority the Believer sees by that glorious beame of light that shines in Scripture I would know of what Beliefe the Doctour speakes Of Faith in Act or in Habit If of beliefe in Habit then they are Believers before they see that glorious beame of light which shines in Scripture If he meane the Act of Faith then by that Act he sees that glorious beame which Act must therfore be the Eye wherby he saith the Believer is sayd to see And he speakes yet more clearly in these words following The Church is the watchman that holdeth out the light in open View and presenteth the shining beames therof to all that haue eyes to discerne it Therfore he supposes eyes to which the Scripture is represented which eyes being not only the naturall Power of our vnderstanding must be somthing els And the Protestant Amesius de Circulo after he had spoken much of the light of Scripture comes to say Tantùm fide vt oculo opus esse statuimus quae in spiritum resolvitur tanquam in causam Where you see he compares Faith to an Eye and we may aske him whether he meane of habituall or Actuall Faith and apply to his Answer whatsoever it be the same reflection which I made even now concerning Potters words The like difficulty and Argument may be made against the private spirit which if it be a particular Revelation that Scripture is the word of God distinct from the Revelations contained in Scripture it followes that Scripture doth not containe all Divine Revelations and that our vnderstanding with that Revelation must be the eye wherby Scripture is seene and not be produced by Scripture If it be not a Divine Revelation it must be tryed by the Beliefe of Scripture and so that Beliefe must be an eye precedent to the private spirit and consequently be an eye to itselfe and both come before and follow itselfe yea whatsoever that spirit be certaine or vncertaine a Revelation or not a Revelation yet it must serue for
tyme are not you true blasphemers by whose Doctrine Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy And ò impiety our Saviour had blasphemed in making himselfe the Son of God if your horrible Doctrine were true 39. Secondly you answer that Dr. Potter mght say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed But then how could the Doctor say that the high Priest had a certaine priviledge from errour wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Is not that to be not only obeyed but of necessity believed which proceeds from an absolutly infallible derection Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed if his determination had beene repugnant to any Point of Faith as it might haue happened if he had no infallible direction Or will you now grant that one may and must dissemble in matters of Religion If you grant this last the ground for which you excuse Protestants from schisme falls to the ground 40. Thirdly you answer It is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the Priviledge which you chalenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truly say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doe otherwise This Answer is no more solid and no lesse repugnant to Dr. Potter than the former For he saith If any such promise from God to assiste the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for oracles without examination Now how could any mans decisions passe for oracles if the promise from God to assist him be not effectuall but that he may actually resist or reject such an assistance and so teach the contrary of that towards which he is assisted by God Therfore the Doctor must be vnderstood of such an assistance as it is certaine the party assisted will follow which is the very Priviledg which you say we chalenge though we say not that we are necessitated as you misreport vs for we know very well that there is a great difference betwixt an absolute necessity and infallibility of an effect as I haue declared hertofore And indeed to say that the high Priest had an infallible assistance which in fact might be resisted is to attribute no more to him than to every man for performing his Duty if he concurre with Gods inspirations and directions or sufficient Grace Yourselfe say N. 148. That the whole depositum of truth was commtted to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I thinke will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and euery Church Which words confirme my saying that by your interpretation the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest than to every man which yet we haue seene to be directly against his words and meaning and that he ascribes that to the high Priest which he denyes to the Pope to whom he professes that if he granted as much as God promised to the high Priest his the Popes decisions might justly passe for oracles without examination Which surely is more than is granted to every man neither would either he or you deny to the Pope that sufficient Grace and assistance to performe his Duty which Assistance you grant to every man To your example of the wise men I answer if God did efficaciously decree that the birth of our B. Saviour should be published to the world by their eye-witnessing he gaue them such direction as in his infinite wisdome he saw they would follow de facto though without either constraint or necessity as you would not deny to be very possible if you had beene versed in solide Divinity or read and vnderstood our Catholike Authors vpon the matter of Grace 41. All that you haue from the N. 125. till 136. inclusiuè is answered already Only I will say that we do not proue the Church to be infallible because so it seemes to vs most fitt as you doe who rely meerly vpon humane discourse but seing the Question between vs is whether the Church or Scripture alone be the infallible Rule or Judge of Faith if we proue that the Church is vsefull for such a purpose and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule it followes that not the Scripture can be such a Rule but that the Church must be a Judge of Controversyes Thus all your roving arguments through diverse numbers vanish into nothing 42. In the end of your N. 126. you say that Charity Maintayned inferred vainly that with monthes and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered Her Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversyes which yet is a true consequence if as Charity Maintayned expressly sayes as the Church by little and litle received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility Protestants grant that after the canon was perfited infallibility ceased to be in the Church and why must they not say that as Bookes of Scripture were written so she by degrees lost her infallibility as being needeless for those points which grewe to be evidently declared by those Bookes For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written the Church wholy lost infallibility and heere enters your conceypt that to him to whom the way is cleare a guide is not necessary Therfore the evidence of Scripture made infallibility in the Church vnnecessary 43. In your N. 137. 138. you dissemble the force of Ch Ma his Argument which is the Church was once indued with infallibility therfore you cannot affirme that she lost it without alledging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion which with you who rely vpon Scripture alone ought to be a convincing Argument Your fond instance about the King of Sweden with the rest of that N. 138. hath beene answered already 44. I need say little to your N. 139.140 having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls And to your words N. 140. directed to Charity Maintayned For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility in some Points and not in others that is a wild notion of your owne which we haue nothing to doe with I Answer if you meane to defende the cause of Potter or other Protestants and not of Socininians only you must of necessity haue to doe with that wild notion For seing it must be granted that before Scripture was written the Church was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall because otherwise we
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
him Philip. 2.17.18 But if I be immolated vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your Faith I rejoyce and congratulate with you all And the selfesame thing doe you also rejoyce and congratulate with me What great sacrifice seruice or obedience is a faith only probable and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises 16. Morouer that Faith doth not necessitate our vnderstanding but is free and voluntary euen quoad specificationem as Diuines speake that is in such manner as it is in our will to belieue the contrary of what we belieue by Faith and for that cause requires Gods particular assistāce and a pious affection in the will and a submitting or captiuating of our vnderstanding is gathered out of diuine Scriptures that vpon the same preaching of the Ghospel some belieued and some belieued not as we reade Act. 17.32.34 Certaine mocked but certaine sayd we will heare thee againe concerning this poynt But certaine men joyning vnto him did belieue Marc 16.15.16 Going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all creatures He that belieueth ād is baptized shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be condemned V. 14. he exprobated their incredulity Which shewes that jnfidelity is a sinne and sinne supposeth liberty to the contrary Rom. 10.16 But all do not obey the Ghospel This supposeth that some belieue not and that some other belieue and in belieuing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15. Abrahā belieued God and it was reputed to him vnto justice Heb. 11. it is sayd that God prepared for the Fathers an euerlasting citty and that they got a repromission by Faith Ioan. 20. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue belieued Luc. 2. Blessed art thou who hast belieued But a meritorious act or deserving such prayses must be free Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the vnderstanding to assent at least that it cannot assent to the contrary as hath bene shewed Therfor his Faith is not that Christian belief which Holy Scripture commands that is a free Assent captiuating our vnderstanding and raysing it aboue all the Motiues of Credibility or Probability and consequently absolutly certaine and infallible wherby we voluntarily submit and perfectly subject our soule to God and his supreme authority For wheras we may distinguish foure sorts of Knowledg wherof the First is Experimentall or of senses 2. Scientificall 3. Humane Faith 4. Diuine Faith Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledg and such the first and second sort is not The third is imperfect as the authority on which it relyes is subject to errour The fourth then remaynes as it were Religion or highest worship called latria or the greatest submission wherby the will perfectly subject vnto God subjecteth vnto him the other powers which are subordinate vnto it selfe and it is great impiety to belieue that God hath not enabled Christians to offer to theyr creatour and Redeemer a seruice or Obedience connaturall to the Diuine Autority Perfection and Testimony 17. This reason drawen from Obedience exercised in the act of Christian Faith is further enforced thus The command of the will or Pious affection which Diuines require in Faith produceth in the vnderstanding a more firme assent than would be produced without (a) Vide Card Lugo de Fide Disp 10. Sect. 2. N. 19. it as we see by experience that men obstinate in errour or strongly affected to some truth produce by theyr will a more firme assent than otherwise it would haue bene yea the command of the will affection passion and the like moue men to assent to that vnto which otherwise they would not assent or from which perhaps they would dissent Therfor seing the will can moue the vnderstanding to produce the substance of an act much more may it determine vs to produce more degrees of assent or dissent than otherwise it would Although therfor it were granted that a Conclusion formally as such can haue no greater strength than it receyues from the Premises yet the same conclusion or object taken materially may receyue greater strength from some other cause than it did receyue from the Premises as such as the same materiall truth which being inferred from probable Premises is only probable may grow to be certaine if it be deduced from demonstratiue arguments Therfore Chillingworths ground that the Assent of Faith being a Conclusion drawne from probable Premises can be noe more than probable is either false if it be vnderstood that by no other meanes it can be made more than probable or impertinent if he meane that it cannot exceede probability precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferd from probable Premises it being sufficient for our purpose that it be improued to a certainty by some other meanes Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receyues from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability and that indeed it receyues a further perfection from the Pious Affection and prudent command of the will we must conclude that it is raised aboue the highest degree of a probable to a certaine Assent Which yet is more and more euinced by this following consideration 18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retaine the highest degree of probability as Chilling pretends if it haue no greater perfection than it receyues from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility Therfor we must find some other ground on which Christian Faith relyes than meerly such arguments The antecedent I proue thus For to omit what some perhaps will say that at least the Assent of Faith which he sayth is a Conclusion is not so probable as the Premises on which it depends and so is not probable in the highest degree although it were granted that the Motiues of Credibility considered alone may mooue the vnderstanding to the highest degree of probability and such as one cannot entertayne without a prudent doubt of the contrary yet if they be compard and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them by reason that the Mysteryes of Christian Faith which really are superiour and seemingly are contrary to naturall Reason and Philosophy that supposed highest pitch of probability must needs be abated and lessened and come to some lower than the highest As althongh the will do necessarily loue an object which appeares good when it attends not to any reason or formality of some euill neuerthelesse it is not necessarily carryed to loue that object when it perceyueth any euill therin so the vnderstanding so long as truth is proposd without any thing offered to the contrary necessarily or easily yelds assent but if contrary difficultyes be represented it is apt to pause and consider and perhaps doubt or feare and must needs fall somwhat from its former confidence adhesion and assent if it be left to it selfe and not assisted with greater strength than can arise from meere probabilityes encountred and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons And as Chilling speaking to Catholiques sayth Pag. 113.
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
objections out of scripture And therfor they cannot with certainty believe the sayd principle Your self say Pag 61. N. 23. If our Saviour had intended that all Controversyes in Religion should be by some visible judg finally determined who can doubt but in playne termes he would have expressed himself about this matter And may not we turne the same argument against you and say If our Saviour had intended that all poynts of Faith and religion should be evident in scripture without relation to any visible judg church or vnwrtiten Tradition who can doubt but in plaine termes he would have expressed himself in this matter And my retortion is stronger than your Argument can be because true Catholique Doctrine belieues not only scripture or the written word of God but tradition also or the word of God not written which all grant to haue bene before scripture and from which you confess we receiue scripture it self And so although nothing were sayd in scripture of a visibse judg to determine controversyes in Religion yet vniuersall tradition sense of all Christians and practise of Gods church in determining and defining matters of Faith were sufficient to assure vs therof But Protestants must either alledg evident scripture or nothing at all This I say not as if we wanted evident scripture for the necessity of a visible judg of controversyes but only to shew that we haue not that necessity of alledging scripture for this and every other particular poynt which Protestants haue 25. Secondly I proue our assertion thus we are to suppose that Allmighty God having ordayned Man to a supernaturall End cannot faile to provide on his part meanes sufficient for attaining therof Since then Faith is necessary for ariving to that End if it cannot be learned except by scripture alone no doubt but he would have obliged the Apostles to write as he obliged them to preach and Christians to heare the Gospell For if he left it to their freedom it is cleare that he did not esteeme writing to be necessary which yet must be most necessary if we can attaine Faith and salvation only by scripture But Protestants even for this cause that they are to belieue nothing which is not expressed in scripture cannot affirme that our Saviour gaue any such command to his Apostles seing it is evident no such thing is expressed in scripture Therfor they cannot avouch any such command But for preaching we read Marc 16. V. 15. Going into the whole world preach yee the Gospell to all creatures And in obedience to this command it is recorded V. 20. But they going forth preached every where And our Saviour living on earth sent his Apostles abroad with this injunction Matth 10.7 Euntes praedicate Goe preach The Apostle saith Rom 10.17 Faith is by hearing And V. 18. have they not heard And certes into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth and vnto the ends of the whole earth the words of them where we heare of hearing and speaking but not of writing or reading of a sound conveyed to the eares of the whole world not of any booke or writing set before their eyes Thus we see that only two of the Apostles haue also made themselves Evangelists by writing the Gospell though all were Evangelists by preaching it Chill and his fellowes thinke they can demonstrate out of S. Luke more clearly than out of any other Evangelist that his Gospell contaynes all poynts necessary to salvation and yet He is so farr from producing any command he had to write which had bene the most cleare effectuall and necessary cause that could haue bene alledged that contrarily he shewes that it was done by free election saying Luc 1.1 3. because many haue gone about c. It seemed good also to me to write c. Neither doth any one of all the Canonicall writers alledg a command for writing S. Paule saith 1. Cor 9.16 If I evangelize it is no glory to me for necessity lyeth vpon me for woe is to me if I evangelize not But he sayes not woe to me if I write not and accordingly we see some of the canonicall writers differred writing a long tyme after our B. Sauiours Ascension and did not write but on severall incident occasions as Bellarmine de verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. demonstrates out of Eusebius If then it was not judged necessary that scripture should be written but that the Church had other meanes to beget and conserue true Faith and religion as S. Paule 1. Cor 15.1 expressly saith I doe you to vnderstand the Gospell which I preached vnto you which also you received in the which also you stand And V. 11. So we preach and so you haue believed What can be more vnreasonable than to belieue it to be necessary that all things necessary be evidently contayned in scripture alone without dependance on tradition or the church Or who can believe that the Saints Paule Iames Iude Iohn in their Epistles written vpon severall occasions or to private persons intended to write a Catechisme or specify all necessary points of Faith Hence it is that Eusebius Histor Eccles L. 3. C. 24. affirmes that S. Iohn was sayd to haue preached the Gospell even almost to the end of his life without notice of any scripture and in generall that the Apostles were not sollicitous to write much And the same is observed by S. Chrysostome Hom 1. in Act. Apost If then Protestants cannot proue by evident scripture that all Canonicall writers receyved a command to write how will they proue that they were bound to publish their writings wherof as I sayd some were directed to private persons or that others were or are bound to publish them or to reade them being published And if they can shew no command for these things how can they maintayne that there is no meanes to know matters of Faith except by scripture 26. Thirdly you teach That all necessary poynts are evident in scripture though there be many points evident which are not necessary that we cannot precisely determine what points in particular be necessary that such a determination or distinction is needless For all necessary points being evident in scripture whosoever believes all evident points is sure to know all necessary points and more This is your chiefest ground in this matter But it is evidently refuted by willing you to reflect that by this meanes all must be obliged to know all the cleare or evident texts of scripture otherwise he cannot be sure that he knowes all necessary points since you giue him the assurance of knowing all necessary points only by this meanes of knowing all points that are evident Therfore if he be not sure that he knowes all evident points he cannot be sure that he knowes all such as are necessary Yea every one will be obliged to know every text or period of scripture and to examine whether it be evident or obscure least that if vpon examination it appeare to be
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamentall as thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
that it is inspired and that it is prositable Therfor as every part of Scripture is inspired so is it also profitable And what an incongruous change of sense were it of the same word All Scripture that is every part of Scripture is inspired and all Scripture that is only the whole body of Scripture is profitable How then will they be able to proue much less to proue evidently that the words All Scripture must be certainly taken in this sense And yet till they doe this they haue done nothing for their purpose 69. Fourthly We must also consider to whom S. Paul avoucheth Scripture to be even profitable Which is not to every vnlearned person but that the man of God may be perfect wherby is to be vnderstood a Doctour and Bishop as Corn a Lapide affirmeth vpon this place and In 1. Timoth Cap 6. V. 11. where S. Timothy is called Homo Dei the man of God proves it out of S. Chrisost and Theodoret that men eminently holy are called men of God as Prophets are so called 4. Reg 1.11 12. Elias is called the man of God and Samuel 1. Reg 9. The like we see Judic 12.6 and 3. Reg 13.1 It is also a title of Kings Princes and Prelates so Moyses Deut 13.1 is called Homo Dei man of God and David 2. Paral 8.14 Now Timothy was a Doctour Bishop and Prince of the Church of Ephesus This is also the interpretation of Beza To those then who are supposed to be already well instructed by other teachers the Scripture is very profitable that is not Scripture alone but joyned with tradition and interpretation of Gods Church A paralel to this of S. Paul All scripture inspired of God is the Text of S. Peter Ep 2. C. 1. 20.21 Vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not of mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost If Heretiques did confider and practise this primum first that all prophecy is not made by private interpretation For not by mans will c they would not be Heretiques but would see to whom scripture is profitable not to those who will admitt no Guide nor interpretation but their own witt and will to whom it becomes by their only fault not profitable but pernicious as experience tells vs. So far is it from being necessary or sufficient 70. Thus their Chiefest proofes out of scripture being clearly confuted it remaynes demonstrated that they haue no solid proofe that Scripture alone contaynes all things necessary to Salvation But yet let vs alledg some more Arguments to disproue their Tenet 71. Eleaventhly Seing Protestants cannot proue out of scripture that scripture is evident for all necessary poynts this alone is sufficient to overthrow their Assertion and Religion But for the difficulty and obscurity of scripture we haue alledged evident scripture even in a poynt most necessary concerning the Messias in the example of the Eunuch and the Apostles themselves which difficulty is further most clearly testifyed by S. Peter who expressly writes thus 2. Pet 3.15.16 As also our most deare brother Paul according to the wisdome given him hath written to you As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things in the which are certayne things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perditiō In which words I obserue First that as by reason of the hardness of some things in S. Paules Epistles mē did erre so they did erre also in the rest of the scriptures for the same reasō which shewes that other scriptures contayne things hard to be vnderstood Secondly That those mē did erre in necessary poynts seing their errours were cause of their destruction Therfor the scripture is hard and obscure in necessary matters For an errour cannot be damnable vnless the contrary truth be necessary The translatour of the English bible Ann 1600. Preface avoucheth that it is A very hard thing to vnderstand the holy scriptures and that divers errours sects and heresies grow daily for lacke of true knowledg therof Mark that he speaks of matters of moment in which to erre is to fall into Heresy 72. Twelfthly I take an Argument from these your owne words Pag. 54. N. 4. If men did really and sincerly submitt their judgments to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to do so it were impossible but that all Controversies thouching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter In which words you seeme te extend the sole sufficiency and evidence of scripture to things very profitable For if these be not evidently contayned in scripture how can you say it were impossible but that all controversies touching them should be ended since obscurity or want of evidence is that which produces all Controversyes Besides you say that if Controversyes in things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Therfor a contrario sensu it imports that Controversyes about things very profitable be ended But this saying of yours demonstrates how little credit you deserue in affirming all things necessary to be evidently contayned in scripture alone since you teach the same of things very profitable which are so far from being all contayned evidently in scripture that for a convincing Reason for the contrary we need no other proofe then manifest Experience and contentions of Protestants among themselves concerning many poynts which they expressly declare to be of great momēt as for example the Canon of scripture it self and How it is knowē to be the word of God the infallibility of Christiā Faith the Eucharist Predestination Free-will vniversall Grace Repentāce Definition necessity effect of Sacraments Government of the Church and other poynts and yet in Charity whose essentiall Character is to judg and hope the best as you say Pag. 34. N 6. I suppose you will not judg but that all those your brethren at least divers of them do really and sincerely submitt their judgments to scripture and seing it is manifest that they do not agree I see no remedy but that you must confess scripture alone not to be evidēt nor sufficient in all things very profitable If then even according to your owne words aboue recited it import that there be some evidēt ād certaine meanes to end Controversies touching things very profitable and that this cannot be done by scripture alone it must require a living Guide Besides what evident text of scripture can you produce to proue that it alone is evident in all things very profitable And your Reader wil be glad to know what you meane by things very profitable and whether you intend to distinguish them from things profitable and whether your meaning be that scripture alone is cleare for things very profitable but
that the alteration of the Sabboth from Satterday to Sunday is not proved by scripture but is acknowledged to be an Apostolyque Tradition to be perpetually observed sett tymes of Fasting and from certaine meates appointed not only for politique order but for spirituall considerations the primacy of one over the Church in seuerall Nations and Kingdomes vnwritten traditions necessary to be observed blessing of our meate and forhead with the signe of the crosse and further vse therof in the publike liturgy about which Joannes Creecelius in his descriptio refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae c Printed Magdeburgi An 1603. Pag 118. giveth testimony of the Lutherans doctrine saying We do not disallow the signe of the holy Crosse if once or twice without superstition it be freely vsed in the Divine Service yea if in private our meate and drinke be-signed therwith For when we goe to bed or rise we signe our selves with the Crosse according to the institution of Luther and other godly men And Joannes Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc Commun Pag 636. saith Luther sayd Having made the signe of the Crosse God defend me c As also the Communion-Booke in the tyme of King Edward the sixt penned by advise and approbation of Cranmer Latimer Ridley and other Protestant Divines of that tyme printed Ann 1549. Fol 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse And Fol 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse 92. These Poynts and more than these which I omitt Brierley doth punctually demonstrate divers Protestants to hold with vs against their owne Brethren which I haue more willingly set downe that Protestants may see how little reason they haue to esteeme the very name of Papists odious since many of their greatest Divines are Papists in so very many and chiefest Poynts and which ought not to passe without reflexion even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seeme most Superstitious and for which they are brought vp in contempt and hatred of our Religion and vs. If our Catholique Religion were as beggarly as that of Protestants which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Poynts we might easily encrease our number with addition of as many Protestants as we haue rehearsed and of many more than we can easily reckon Certaine it is that Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Poynts of moment against vs but that joyntly they must wound their owne Brethren if indeed they did vnderstand what they say and did not think the name of Papists to be a sufficient cause of hatred whatsoever that name doth signify wherof many are very ignorant But for my purpose I conclude that Scripture alone cannot be cleare seing Protestants in so many and so important matters especially in those very particulars wherin they pretend to differ from vs are indeed so far divided among themselves as that they fall to joyne with vs with whom nothing but meere necessity and force of evident truth could moue them to agree And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with vs shews that the Scripture is not cleare at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their owne Brethren sō their disagreeing among themselves doth convince the same For how can men if with sinceryty they seeke the truth be so divided having before their eyes one and the same cleare and evident Rule as they pretend scripture to be 93. If any for avoyding the premises adventure to say that those learned protestants who affirme the Ancient Fathers to stand for vs do not vnderstand the meaning of their words ād that for the same cause perhaps protestants do not agree with vs nor differ among themselves so much as their writings not well vnderstood make shewe To this answer although I might reply with those words of Tertullian in Apologet Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur c No man will lye to his owne shame but rather to his owne credit we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves then their denyall against themselves as also I might say that the testimonies of protestants for the sayd purposes are so evident so many of so different persons and delivered not incidently or by some other occasion but of sett purpose at large and as I may say in cold bloud that they cannot with any modesty be avoyded yet I will only say and the Objection deserves no other answer that if the writings of mē which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture and proportioned to the weakness of humane vnderstanding be so hard and obscure we ought even from this Objection to conclude that scripture alone cannot be evident Thus the Lutherans do grievously complaine against the Calvinists (a) Gerardus Gieskenius a Lutheran in his Book de veritate Corporis Christi in Coena contra Pezelium Pag 93. so charges the Calvinists because say they you alledge Luthers words against his meaning In like manner the same Lutheran Charges them for that they (b) Vbi supra Pag 77. endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta which teacheth the Reall presence to be Zuinglian that is against the reall presence exclayming therat if this thing had bene done in Arabia America Sardinta or such like remote Countryes and of former tymes this vsurpation of fraud and historicall falshood were more tolerable But seing the questiō is of such things as be done in our owne tymes and in the sight of all men who with a quiet mynd can endure such lyes In like manner Fulk in his Answer to a counterfaite Catholique Artic 17. Pag. 61. is not ashamed to say that the Lutherans and the Zuinglians do both consent in this That the Body of Christ is receaved spiritually not corporally with the hart not with mouth which all the world knowes to be manifestly vntrue Thus also Dr. Field of the Church L. 3. C. 42. Pag 170. sayth I dare confidently pronounce that after due and full examination of each others meaning there shal be no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament the Vbiquetary Presence or the like between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany and other places and those whom some mens malice call Sacramentaryes And Dr. Potter Pag 90. is not afrayd to say that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in forme and phrases of speech then in substance of Doctrine even in the maine controversy between them about Consubstantiation which after occasioned that of Vbiquity The maine truth on both sides is out of Controversy that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithfull communicant and that in his whole person hee is every where The doubt is only in the manner how he is in the symboles and how in Heaven and Earth which is no part of Faith but a curious nicyty Is it all one to be exhibited
from Heretiques because we affirme that all necessary doctrine concerning either Faith or Manners is not contayned expressly in scripture and that beside the written word of God there is required the vnwritten word that is Divine and Apostolicall Traditions c ād C. 4. the very title wherof is this The necessity of Traditions is proved in the beginning he sayth First we will endeavour to shew that scripture without Traditions was neither simply necessary nor sufficient Secondly that there are extant Apostolicall Traditions not only concerning manners but also Faith Is it not very strāge you should alledg Bellarmine for the sufficiēcy of scripture alone who in a whole booke containing twelue Chapters professes to teach and proue the necessity of Tradition or Gods vnwritten word and in most cleare words which even now we alledged declares how scripture is cleare and sufficient namely togeather with Tradition and Interpretation of Gods church But by this is confirmed what I sayd aboue how hard it is to find evidence in holy Scripture the matter and manner wherof surpasses all naturall witt seing the words of men are so confidently alledged out of those places wherin they purposely teach profess and proue the direct contrary of that for which they are produced as here you say that the words you cite out of Bellarmine are as you conceyue as home to your purpose as you could wish them 99. Object 2. You say Pag 337. N. 20. S. Luke plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary And Pag 212. N. 43. For S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospell that is as you speake the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ in my judgment it ought to be with them that belieue him no manner of question And this you endeavour to proue out of these words of S. Luke in the Introduction to his Gospell For asmuch as many haue taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst vs even as they delivered vnto vs which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word it seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thou hast bene instructed To this place you add the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles the former treatise haue I made ô Theophilus of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach vntill the day in which he was taken vp Therfor say you all things necessary to salvation are certainly contayned in S. Lukes writing alone 100. Answer First you falsify S. Luke in saying that he plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary For where do you find those words all things necessary And much less can you find that he plainly professeth to deliver all things necessary and least of all that he plainly professeth to deliver all necessary things plainly or evidently The Question is not between vs whether all necessary things be contayned in scripture obscurely or implicitely or in a generall way of referring vs to Gods Church for divers particulars but whether all necessary Points be contayned in scripture expressly in particular evidently without reference to the Tradition Interpretation or Declaration of the Church and it is evident that S. Luke hath no evident words to proue all that I haue sayd you must proue if you speake to the matter Which also appeares by considering that not only Catholiques amongst whom you will not deny but there are many learned pious and desirous to saue their soules but Protestants also see no such evidence for proving the sufficiency of S. Lukes Gospell or any other Gospell or particular Booke of Scripture taken alone seing their doctrine is that scripture contaynes all things necessary only after the Canon was finished and yet S. Lukes Gospell was written forty yeares before the whole scripture was written For this cause Protestants interpret Omnis scriptura vtilis est 2. Tim. 3.16 All scripture is profitable not distributiuè for every particular part or Booke of scripture but collectiuè for the whole Bible and some English Protestant Translation Ann 1586. hath not All scripture but the whole Bible is profitable where by the way is to be noted how they can helpe their errours by their different Translations and how litle credit is to be given to their Bibles Neither do Protestants commonly alledge these Texts of S. Luke for the sufficiency of scripture but other places as we haue seene aboue and who can imagine that they would haue omitted so pregnant a proofe if they were of your mynd concerning the evidence therof Remember here what you say Pag. 61. N. 24. The thing is not evident of it self which is evident because many do not belieue it How then can the words and meaning of S. Luke be evident of themselves seing so many both your Brethren and Adversaryes neither see nor belieue any such meaning Call also to mynd what you write Pag 99. N. 119. How shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plaine termes the Church of Rome is infallible This I retort and fay seing there is not I say not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ but not one learned writer for 1500. yeares after Christ that interprets this Text as you doe How shall I be assured that this place hath indeed this sense in it Yea even by this appeares the necessity of a living judg to declare the true meaning of this and other Texts of Scripture as occasion shall require 101. 2. S. Luke saith Assecuto omnia Having had perfect vnderstanding of All And the former Treatise haue I made of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach Of All All is a signe of Vniversality he that sayes all excepts nothing If therfor we follow the plaine obvious vsuall Grammaticall and Logicall sence it must signify that S. Luke delivered in writing absolutely all that our Saviour wrought and taught But this larg notion you cānot admitt without contradicting S. John Cap 21.25 But there are many other things which Jesus did which if they were written in particular neither the world it-self I thinke were able to containe those books that should be writtē Well thē being drivē from the Logicall ād seeming evidēt notion of All you must vnderstand All not in the whole latitude of the word but with some restriction I pray you shew vs this particular restriction not from any probable vncertaine topicall discourse of your own but from some certaine express evident Text of Scripture declaring this restriction But this is impossible for you to doe as every child will see Therfor this your argument is already at an end for as much as can be proved out of
interpretation but that of Gods Church And it is an injury to the insinite wisdom of our B. Saviour to imagine that he left that for a sufficient Meanes to conserue Vnity which hitherto neither hath had nor ever will nor ever can haue that effect without a perpetuall great and vnusuall Miracle by making men different in all other things agree in the sense of Scripture You will not deny but that while the Apostles and other Canonicall writers were aliue the scripture ioined with such explication as they could giue by word of mouth or by writing new bookes was sitter to conserue vnity then now it is and by not making vse of such help of some authenticall interpreter it is sayd of the Epistles of S. Paul 2. Pet. 3 V. 16. that there were in them some hard things to be vnderstood which vnlearned and inconstant persons did depraue to their owne perdition as they did also other Scriptures Now the Church supplyes that want of the Apostles personall presence And so we may say of all Controversyes in Faith as S. Austine de vnit Eccles C. 22. writes concerning the Question about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretikes Seing we find not in Scripture that some pass to the Church from heretiks and were receyved as I say or as thou sayest I suppose that if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might feeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beares witness to his Church And a litle after Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church 179. To your demand Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit meanes to conserue vs in vnity and keep vs from errour as the Decrees of the Church The Answer is easy and cleare First If one Decree be obscure it may be declared by another seing the church cā never perish 2. If any new cōtroversy in faith arise the Church alwayes living and present cā determine it by some new Decree or Declaration These conditions are wanting in scripture which is alwayes the same and wil be no more cleare or of any larger extent for the contents therof to morrow than it is to day nor can ' it speake and declare it self by it selfe but only can be declared by some living Judg or Interpreter And you are in a great errour if you conceiue that we hold any one Writing or Decree to be sufficient for deciding all Controversyes But we say that the Church vpon severall exigents can declare her mynd either by explicating former Decrees or by promulgating new ones as necessity shall require And for this cause there are extant so many Decrees of Councells c If we did yield to any one writing the sufficiency of ending all emergent Controversyes God forbid we should deny it to hòly scripture Neither do we distinguish Tradition from the written word because Tradition is not written by any or in any booke or writing but because it is not written in the scripture or Bible For Tradition hath this advantage that it may be both written and delivered by word of mouth and so be certainly conserved By these considerations is answered an Objection which you make against some words of Cha Ma and it shall be 180. Object 5. Pag 54. N. 5. You are pleased to speak to your Adversary in this manner In the next words of Cha Ma Part 1. Chap 2. N. 1. we haue direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgment made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledg say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule Only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition As if you should haue sayd we acknowledg it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be Either therfor you must revoke your acknowledgment or retract your retraction of it for both cannot possibly stand togeather For if you will stand to what you haue granted That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith as a writing can be You must then grant it both so compleat that it needes no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections you say N. 7. is so plaine that I am even ashamed to proue it For he that denyes it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written Answer me Whether your Church can set downe in writing all these which she pretends to be Divine vnwritten Traditions and add them to the verityes already written And whether she can set vs downe such interpretations of all obscurityes in Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If shee can let her doe it and then we shall haue a writing not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus if he had pleased could haue writ vs a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible and then a writing there might haue been endowed with both these propertyes 181. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your words much more at large than was needfull the answer having been given already that no one writing can without a great and vnvsuall miracle be capable of being a perfect Rule of Faith and your Arguments proue no such matter as will appeare anone But first I must tell you that you cite Cha Ma very disadvantagiously or rather falsely thus We acknowledg scripture to be a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition and here you stopp wheras He added We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be vnwritten or an externall judge to keep to propose to interpret it in a true Orthodox and Catholique sense Now that no writing is able to propose or proue it self to be authentiall or true or to keep and conserue it self Cha Ma proved ibidem N. 3.4.5.6 and the thing is of it self so true and evident that Pag 61. N. 24. to the words of Cha Ma The scripture stands in need of some
containe something against scripture For example whether according to the example of our Saviour the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper or at the tyme when we are wont to supp as Protestants commonly call it the supper which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone but only by authority of the Church which practiseth the contrary And this is so great a doubt that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it and S. Austine answers that we are to follow the custome of Churches though yet in the same Epistle Cap. 7. he saith Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio c. Some were moved with a probable reason that vpon one particular day in the yeare on which our Lord gaue the supper the Body and Bloud of our Lord might be offered ād receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration The same I say of washing the feete and other circumstances which abstracting from the practise of the Church you can haue no certainty but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all And in particular for washing of feet our Saviour Joan. 13. V. 8. said to S. Peter If I wash thee not thou shalt haue no part with me And V. 14. you also ought to wash one anothers feet Mark the word ought which may seeme to sound a commād and was spoken not only to S. Peter but to all the rest Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise Declaration and infallibility we must say that there is a command to wash feete either before we receyve the Eucharist or els absolutely without relation to that Sacrament because our Saviour sayd absolutely you ought to wash one an others feet Morover How will you assure vs that bread for the Matter of Consecration must not of necessity be vnleavened and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme Or if you may cōsecrate in any kind of wine why not in any kind of bread Which are things belonging not only to decency or circumstance but also to the substance of the Sacrament and though they belonged only to circumstance yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture the doing or omission of thē were damnable therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church cānot erre Neither cā he be thought to say these things are not vnlawfull but indifferent therfor it is madness to dispute against them if they be practised by the whole church but contrarily he must say the whole church practises them therfore they are lawfull ād it is madness to dispute against them which were not so if the whole church might erre neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent as you ibid Pag. 151. N. 42. deny not but it might be esteemēd pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstāces of Gods worship And yet S. Austine in that Epistle Cap. 2. having first mentioned things contayned in scripture adds these words But those things which we keep not as written but by tradition if they be observed through the whole world are vnderstood to be kept as recōmended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves or by generall Councells whose authority is most wholsome in the Church and having given examples of things which are differētly observed in different places and countryes saith this kind of things is freely observed neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come ād afterward he disallowes their proceeding who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture nor by tradition of the vniversall church Therfor according to S. Austine if ōce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church we may ād ought to defend it without further dispute ād to impugne ād reject whatsoever practise or doctrine of any particular church or countrey though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble which we could not doe without pride ād folly vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise or deliver any thing against faith ād therfor he saith Cap. 4. that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country will not speake out of scripture neither will he take his proofes frō the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture and the voice of the vniversall church either of which whosoever can alledg he may confidently stand for what they deliver And for this cause cap. 5. he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote was to consider whether that of which there was Question be contayned in scripture or be vnanimously practised by the whole church or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes of which third kind he saith let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself But of the two first kinds he speakes as I noted aboue in another manner that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise and that to dispute against any such thing is most insolent madness What could haue bene spoken more cleare to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church because we judg aforehand that what she practises is lawfull but because we learne by her practise that it is lawfull and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit that is ought to be so done and so we must learne of her both the practise and the lawfulness therof And consequently whatsoever is against scripture or the practise of the vniversall Church must not be ranked among the third kind of things of which he sayd none of those things are against Faith or Manners and contrarily whatsoever is of the two first kinds that is against scripture or the vniversall Church must be esteemed to be of a different nature and contrary to Faith or Manners and therfor saith he velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat vel institui quod non fiebat Either that must be mended which was done amisse or that is to be ordayned which was omitted And therfor your saying here that it is not to be accounted pride or folly to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship is directly against S Austine and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses nor of Heresy even by this most pernicious Doctrine that the vniversall Church may erre 210. From these places of S. Austine and what we haue sayd
that we are obliged to belieue the contents or verityes contained in scripture but one of those is that scripture it self is the word of God and inspired by Him therfor we are obliged to belieue scripture to be the word of God The minor is proved out of S. Paul 2. Timoth 3.16 All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach c. that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke Which words Protestants and yourself in part alledg to proue that scripture is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith And if it be a perfect Rule certainly it must be a Rule therfor that scripture is a Rule of Faith is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently a materiall Object of our Faith Or if you will needs say that we do not belieue as an Object of Faith scripture to be a totall Rule of faith you overthrow the cause of Protestants and yourself by confessing it cannot be proved out of scripture that scripture is such a totall Rule which is the thing I haue mainly vrged against you in my last Chapter and if this cannot be done why do you goe about to doe it by alledging texts of scripture for that purpose Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to proue that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you graÌ„t it cannot be proved out of scripture on which you profess all matters of Faith to be grounded Yourself P. 143. N. 30. note it is saied in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrâ—es of the Church are divinely inspired and the controversy will bâ—at an end that is you will belieue as a matter of Faith that the decrees of the Church are infallible seing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired you must belieue as a matter of faith that it is infallible or the word of God The like argument I take from the doctrine of Protestants and their endeavour to proue out of scripture that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points for which they are wont to alledg the words of the Psalme 18. V. 9. The precept of our Lord lightsome illuminating the eyes and Psalm 118. V. 105. Thy word is a lampe to my feete and 2. Pet 1. V. 19. which you doe well attending vnto as to a candel shining in a darke place Therfor according to them this Proposition scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points is a truth contayned in scripture and a materiall Object of Faith vnless they will grant what we vrge against them that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Poynts Besides Pag 143. N. 30. you bring the said words of S. Paul All scripture is divinely inspired expresly and immediately to proue that the Apostles were infallible in their writings Therfor it is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently by your owne confession a materiall Object of Faith Morover we read 2. Pet. 1.20.21 vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not by mans will was prophesy brought at any tyme but the Holy men of God spake inspired with the holy Ghost Therfor we are obliged to belieue as a truth contayned in scripture that the writers therof spoke and wrote inspired by God And what is oftner repeated in the Prophets then the word of our Lord was made to me or the like Therfor one truth contained in scripture is that they wrote by divine inspiration Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words The Apocalyps of Jesus Christ which God gaue him c blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy which God gaue him or inspired into his mynd and so it is contained in scripture and a materiall Object of our Faith and his Apocalyps is the word of God Which Truth being declared by S. John men are bound to belieue it as a matter of Faith though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalyps by other meanes for example by immediate Revelation or Inspiration as S. John himself came to know them vnless you will say that men may reject what an Apostle hath set downe in writing Doth not S. Peter also 2. Epist Cap. 3.15.16 teach that S. Paul wrote his Epistles by wisdom and inspiration from God Therfor it is a materiall object of Faith that S. Paules Epistles are the word of God even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them or had knowne them by some other meanes Therfor your Doctrine that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the conteÌ„ts of scripture though we deny scripture itself is clearly against scripture and repugnant to a truth contayned therin 24. Ninthly and lastly in stead of an argument I may express a just admiration how such a Doctrine as this could appeare in a Book printed in England and approved as agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Fulke a chief man amongst English Protestants saith plainly in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag. 214. Whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures therby be wrayeth himself to be an heretike And hitherto all English and other Protestants haue pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians who rejected all the Scripture as you say one may doe and yet be saved And certainly if men be not obliged to belieue Scripture as a matter of Faith it imports nothing whether they accept or reject it if also they do not belieue it to be the word of God what certaine credit can they giue to it and if Christians did not belieue it to be such they would account it very great foolishnesse to belieue Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to all Philosophy and naturall Reason and depriue men of those things to which nature is most inclined vpon any Testimony or Authority less then Divine And this your Doctrine is less tolerable because you are not able to bring in favour therof any one argument deserving answer 25. You say indeed Pag 116. N. 159. that without knowing or believing scripture one may performe the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospel and not that it is contayned in these or these Bookes 26. But this is a plaine begging the Question to suppose or affirme without proofe that one condition of the new Covenant is not to belieue scripture to be the word of God Yourself Pag 134. N. 13. expressly teach that among the conditions which Christ requires one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to hane beene revealed by him Now that scripture hath bene revealed by God is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirme that they were messengers of God and Infallible in all matters which they
a confused aggregatum per accidens of truths different in nature and kind and as I may say to incorporate with Gods word Apocryphall Writings which are so called not because they may not be true but because they are not Divine as the dictates of humane prudence are not and do you not cosen people who belieue that all is scripture which is contayned in S. Paules Epistles You say the Bible hath bene confirmed by Miracles I aske whether all truths coÌ„tayned in it haue beene so coÌ„firmed or no If they haue seing you say here N. 31. it is impossible God should set his hand and seaâ—e to the confirmation of a falshood at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God and growne to be matters of Faith though we should falfly suppose they were not such in vertue of his teaching theÌ„ as our Saviour sayd If yee will not belieue me beleeue the workes Joa 10.38 If you say all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles it is as good in order to vs as if none had bene so confirmed since the Miracles themselves do not specify what in particular they confirme and what not and so we can only belieue in generall that some Points contayned in the Bible are Truths but this is not enough to belieue with certainty any one in particular Besides all this S. Paul in counselling virginity counsells the same which our B. Saviour had done before as is recorded Matth 12.12 and therfor he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such and spoke not out of humane prudence as you would haue him If it be objected how then doth he say I speak not but our Lord Ianswer It cannot be sayd I speak not by inspiration but our Lord for what an incongruous speach were that But I speak signifyes I counsell advise command or permit by antithesis to those other words V 10. Not I giue command but our Lord. You know Catholiques are wont to alledg this Chapter of S. Paul to proue as a Point of Faith the counsell of perperuall virginity and yet never any of our Adversaryes haue excepted against this Argument by saying S. Paul professes to deliver that matter only as a dictate of humane reason and not as a Divine Revelation which had been a cleare and vnanswerable reply that we could not proue by that place perpetuall virginity to be more perfect as a Point of Faith if they had bene of your mynd and they might easily haue told vs that we could not proue an Article of Faith by words which the Apostle himself professes to containe but a humane dictamen But so it is They who once forsake Gods Church learne only and practise and teach others this lesson Evill men and seduce â—s shall prosper to the worse erring and driving into errours 2 â—â—noth 3. V. 32. 42. I would gladly make an end of this matter But first I must aske how you can say N. 32. If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speakes and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote For who ever pretended that S. Paules judgment was Gods command Contrarily when his judgment is that such a thing is no command of God we do most firmely belieue that it is no command because we are sure that he was no less assisted by Inspiration in saying V. 12. it was no command speake I not our Lord than when V. 10. he declared a command not I but our Lord. 43. Now vpon the whole matter it followes out of this your Errour that although all things necessary to be believed were contayned in scripture yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule or any Rule at all for Christian Faith seing we cannot be absolutely certaine when the writers therof set downe divine Revelations or only dictates of humane reason yea and as you say S. Paul was not inspired by God when he Counselled virginity and consequently might haue erred therin so we cannot be sure that indeed he gaue any such judgment or counsell but that as in counselling so in writing and setting downe that counsell he was no more assisted by Inspiration thaÌ„ in giving it And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintayned about the sayd Texts of S. Paul Chap 4. N. 9. Pag 44. Certainly if the Apostles did sometymes write out of their owne private judgment or spirit though it were granted that themselves could discerne the diversity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniversall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleare that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although each mans private spirit were admitted for direction of himself yet it were not vse full for teaching others Thus you say P. â—41 N. 27 A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme Pag. 62. N. 25 that Bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliver Divine Revelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing therof if once we deny their vniversall infallibility A fourth Errour is set downe in your Pag 62. N. 24. and Pag 141. N. 27. where you profess to know no other meanes to be assured of the scriptures incorruption then you haue that any other Booke is incorrupted and that your assurance of both is of the same kind and condition though this for scripture be farre greater for the degree both Morall assurances and neither physicall or Matematicall 44. If this Doctrine may pass for true it will necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of scripture must not only be of the same kind but be farr less for the degree of it seing the bookes of prophane Authors haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men Atheists Pagans Jewes Turkes and Christians wheras the Bible was either vnknowen or impugned or not much regarded by all except Christians and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian Tymes stood so with the Jewes that the Old scripture was once lost as some say or at least lay hid and Christians had not those commodityes to transcribe faithfully Copyes of the new Testament which pagans had for publishing their Bookes Whence it comes to pass that we find not so many divers readings in Cicero Virgill and other prophane bookes as vve find in scripture To which if we add the many vulgar Translations and Editions to what vncertainty shall we be brought if we proceed only by humane morall assurance of scripture without any living visible Guide the Church so directed by
Constantinople and the Greek Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receyved in Africa as Canonicall by the Decree of the African Councell And therfor you were ill advised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M or Magnus the great wheras he was no Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those commentaryes vpon Job Thus farr Cha Ma 55. As for your demand whether before Sixtus Quintus his tyme our Church had a defined canon of scripture or not I Answer We had the same Canon then which we haue novv and vvhich the sacred councell of Trent hath set dovvne Sess 4. decreto de Canonicis scripturis The church had alvvayes the same Canon that is she never declared by any decree any bookes to be Apocryphall at one tyme vvhich she admitted for Canonicall at another One Councell may omitt or not mention some booke vvhich another specifyes but can never declare it to be Apocryphall or not canonicall to vvhich contrariety only private persons are obnoxious But yet although our church had not set do vvne the canō of scripture it is very improper for you to object then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was scripture and what was not For do not Protestāts till this day disagree about the canon of scripture and so are not able to define vvhat is scripture and what is not yea they positively deny some books to be scripture vvhich others of them affirme to be Canonicall It is true I cannot properly say that for 1500 yeares they haue not defined any canon because they haue no such ancient being But I must say although they should last 1500 millions of yeares they vvould never be able to set dovvne any certaine canon as not having any assured ground for vvhich one part should yield to another And still I must be putting you in mynd of the difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants that vve vvho believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost are sure that she cannot deceaue vs vvith false or Apocryphall scriptures nor obtrude any false canon vvheras you vvho rely vpon scripture alone and yet can haue no certainty vvhat is the true canon as appeares both by your mutuall disagreements and because you haue no certaine infallible meanes to knovv vvhat is true scripture can haue no security for your faith in regard you haue no certainty concerning the totall rule therof 56. Your other Demand Whether our Canon of scripture vvas that vvhich vvas set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it be vvell considered is to speake truth exoticall for to the demand vvhat books be Canonicall the direct and right Ansvver is that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture for example Genesis Exodus Psalmes foure Gospells c vvhich Demand and Ansvver abstract from that other question about different Translations and Editions And vvho vvill aske vvhether the Septuagint or Aquila or Luther Calvin Beza Castalio set out a different Canon of scripture I meane for those bookes in which they agree that they are Canonicall and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon or books of scripture are most different Or if you will haue these demands to be all one seing both the Hebrew and Greeke books are corrupted as Calvin confesses your answer to your owne Demand must be that no true canon of scripture can be found and then woe be to Protestants whose Faith and salvation depends vpon the true canon of scripture If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement I Answer They sett forth no different canon but the selfsame to wit those books which before their tyme made vp the canon of scripture And as for the edition of Sixtus it is no good dealing in you to doe in this as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory concealing the large and cleare Answer which Cha Ma gaue to the same objection made by Potter Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3. where by the Authenticall Testimonyes of Persons aboue all exceptiō he shewed that the Decree of Sixtus about his edition was never promulgated that he himself had declared diverse things to haue crept in which needed a second review and that the whole work should be re-examined which he could never do being prevented by death 57. But good Sr. Reflect I beseech you that in this and the like Demands you give deadly wounds to Protestants who profess to rely vpon scripture alone and yet cannot possibly haue any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted by the Hebrew or Greek Texts which they acknowledg to be corrupted and much less by Translations of Protestants who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errours in their Translations as Cha Ma hath shewed Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16. which I wish the Reader for the Eternall good of his soule to peruse and reflect that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith and yet he either is sure that some Texts therof are corrupted or at least not sure but that they are so he cannot be obliged to belieue any one Text nor can in Matters of Eternity rely theron as in case divers meates were set before me wherof I know some to be poysonous and I haue no meanes to discerne them from the other I cannot safely touch any one of them But the matter passes in a far different manner with vs Catholiks as I haue often sayd and must often repeate We being sure that the church can neither approue any least corruption nor ground vpon it any Point of Faith and so a corruption in a true booke of Scripture can no more hurt vs then false Scriptures or Gospells which were vented in the primitive church could prejudice those Christians Nevertheless although as I sayd the church cannot approue any false translation yet she is not obliged at all tymes to declare one for Authenticall till all circumstances considered there appeare some necessity therof as the sacred Councell of Trent did by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations published by moderne Heretiks in favour of theyr heresies and for other just causes Luther himself Lib contra Zwing de verit Corporis Christi in Euchar was at length foroed to confess that If the world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councells and to haue recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now raigne 58. To that which you say in the same N. 29. suppose it had bene true that never any Booke after reteyving had bene Questioned how had this bene a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what moode or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly
thither If then we may learne all things necessary to salvation without a writing or Scripture as you grant we may and as all Christians must grant for the tyme before Scripture was written we must say therfor it is not necessary for that end and though it were necessary yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine as every man may vnderstand it by himself seing that end of vnderstanding may be compassed by another meanes which is the Declaration of Gods Church And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other Therfore say I we are to belieue that the Church on which we must relie ought to be infallible that so we may trust her without danger For if her Authority be fallible vncertaine and doubtfull yea if de facto she erred she is liable to your censure Pag 37. N. 20. A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non◠at all 10. But here againe Pag 93. and Pag 94. N. 108. which is put to two § § You object how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church or what that Church hath decreed seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted and that even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning diverse things whether they be de fide or not Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church than of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them and are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if they were translated into vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine And N. 109. you say How shall an vnlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of any Decree seing a Councell depends on a true Pope which he cannot be if he came in by Simony or were not babtized which depends on the due Intention of the Minister or were not rightly ordayned Priest and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character 11. This is the summe of what not only you but other Protestants are wont to object and it is the vtmost of your endeavours But will be easily answered by laying this ground That both in this and other Poynts we must distinguish between the certainty of a generall ground or foundation and the certainty of that particular meanes by which we actuate or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground which vnless it be first belieued with certainty cannot haue strength to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance mattters of great difficulty You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edisice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a sever thing that the foundition shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation 12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples That we may prudently yield Obedience Piety and Observance and be obliged to doe so towards Magistrates Parents and Superious it is sufficient that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment that they are such because that judgment is sufficient to apply the generall ground that Obedience Piety c are due to Magistrates Parents c But if that Generall ground were not certaine as an evident dictamen of Reason but only probable men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes but rather would stand for their liberty by pleading possession and following that other dictamen of Reason Equity and Justice Meliorest conditio possidentis To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient that we haue good Reason though not certainty that we are just or in the state of Grace But if this generall Principle The just shall be eternally rewarded were not certaine few I feare would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty before that which they enjoy certainly and for the present You say Pag 172. N. 71. The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly But if one were not certaine of this generall ground That God of his part teaches every one sufficiently men would not easily thinke themselves obliged or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things which they belieue cannot be learned vnless God alone teach them sufficiently if they had no certainty that they can hope for any such teaching And to come neerer to our purpose If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible though it were supposed to be casually true vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God but that indeed it be so For Infallibility of Assent signifyes two things the one that de facto the thing for the present is true the other that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples as cannot in any possible case or occasion consist with falshood or vncertainty which could not be verifyed vnless Scripture in truth and reality and not only in opinion or belief be the word of God For though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth yet in some other it might faile and cause vs to fall into some errour But if we make another kind of supposition That one is told by his Pastour or Prelate whom he might prudently belieue that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God ād in itself is such and consequently infallible in that case he of whom I spoke may exercise an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible and is such indeed
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
Maintayned it followes that they remaine still in force and proue this most necessary Truth Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith but Tradition and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion And whosoever will take an other way will haue reason and God grant it proue not too late to tremble at those words of Uincent Lirinens contra Heres Cap 23. concerning Origen Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones Veterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta Et paulò post Non audies inquit verba Prophetae illius While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions and magistery of the Ancient he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet God grant that every one heare this wholsome advise The neglect therof alone hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours 101. But because you do without end object that we cannot proue the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle proving the Church by Scripture and Scripture by the Church which is in effect to proue the Church by the Church and the Scripture by Scripture I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection CHAP V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH 1. I Say in what manner and order For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church inremaines only now to declare how we can do it without falling into a Circle proving the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture which you object without end though if you be a man of any solid learning it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectiō We grant that with different sorts of persons we must proceed in a different way If one belieue not the Church or Notes proprietyes and prerogatives belonging to Her and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture as contrarily to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority what Scripture is Canonicall and what is the true sense therof by informing him what Canon the Church receyves and what Interpretation she gives Thus in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence Vnity Authority Sanctity Propagation efficacy Infallibility and other Propertyes of the Church But speaking per se and ex natura rei the Church is proved independently of Scripture which we receyue from the Church as you grant which was in Being before the Scripture as all must yield and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church For none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible and many were converted to the true Church before they could belieue the Scripture as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant that there be Meanes and Arguments wherby some men may gaine such credit as others may and ought vnder payne of damnation to belieue that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God and Teachers of Divine Doctrine 2. Thus Moyses the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him did proue themselves true Preachers by many effectuall and most certaine inducements independently of the Old or New Testament yea S. Irenaeus relates as you expressly grant that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ his Aposties and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion proved themselves to be sent by God being verifyed of them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me by Miracles Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrine admirable repentance of sinners Chang of manners Conversion of all sorts of Persons of all Countryes through the whole world and this to a Faith Profession and Religion that proposes many Points as necessary to be believed aboue and seemingly contrary to humane Reason and against mens naturall inclinations togeather with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs Abnegation of Confessours Purity of Uirgins Fortitude even of the youngest Age and weaker sexe and other admirable conspicuous Notes and strong inforcements to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Uictory over all sorts of enemyes Conversion of Infidels all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last and it seemes God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther and other moderne Heretikes for the greater confusion of them and glory of his Church and the same I say of the name Catholique which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles particularly in the Sea of Rome Vnity Stability Perpetuity The Church I say by these and the like evident Arguments proves that she deserves credit as the first Doctours and Preachers did and consequently that her Doctrine and Definitions in Matters concerning Faith are certainly true And we may with all truth avouch that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church or despises them as insufficient opens an inevitable way for Jewes Turks Gentils and all enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the truth therof which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church and in no other Congregation Moreover as the Apostles and Apostolicall men were not believed to be Infallible because they wrote Scripture but contrarily their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture wherby we are uery sure not to run in a
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore 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 For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
according to Protestants there can be no damnable Errour against Faith vnless either it be or be esteemed repugnant to some Truth plainly delivered in Scripture which you say is a necessary point the conclusion must be that Protestants differ in necessary Points and therfore according to your owne assertion are obliged to forsake one another without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false or if as I sayd they are not obliged to parte one from another they could not without Schisme depart from vs. 71. Fiftly to come to the Point and strike at the roote Tell me whether you may be seriously present as members of one community and as I may say parts in the Quire with any sort of people in their Liturgy and publike service or worship of God as long as they do not expressly demand of you a profession of those particular Points wherin you disagree If you may then you may joyne yourselfe with Turks Jewes or even Pagans if they exact not of you such a profession which to any Christian must needs appeare most absurd and impious If you cannot communicate with those of a belief different from yours though they do not exact a profession of their Faith against your owne belief and conscience it still followes clearly that your Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours is impertinent seing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith though they impose it not vpon you and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another since they differ in Faith or els that they could not forsake vs vpon pretence that we impose vpon you a necessity of professing knowne Errours Seing that Condition of imposing c is impertinent Into how many difficultyes and contradictions do you cast yourself by impugning the Truth But enough of this Memorandum or condition 72. Your last Memorandum was That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as Faith and obedience this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgyes and publike worship of God 73. Answer I wish you had declared yourself better First Pag 271. N. 51. you say We are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For Heresy we conceiue an obstinate defense of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another I haue not tyme to examine what you meane by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed vnder paine of damnation if it be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God And is it not Heresy to deny any such Article If it be so then your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implyes no such Mystery as one would haue expected in those so limited words and besides if it be Heresy to deny any Point though in itselfe never so small of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith some must be Heretiks and in state of damnation and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formall Heretiks If it be not an Heresy nor damnable to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not damnable Neither could you for such Errours divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches If you will needs say that no Errour is Heresy vnless it contradict some Article of itselfe Fundamentall What in particular is Heresy or who is an Heretik you cānot knowe seing you professe that it cannot be determined in particular what Points be Fundamentall and therfore you must retract your former words we are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy For if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is you will for ever be to learne the difference between Schisme ād Heresy to say nothing for the present that Potter Pag 212. acknowledges that whatsoeuer is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity therfore it is Heresy at least to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God though they be not Fundamentall in themselves And Pag 250. he declares expressly every Errour against any Point revealed to be Heresy in these words Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is an Heretike and heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from Heaven Gal 5 20.21 therfore if you will not contradict Potter and yourself in severall places you must confess that Heresy may be committed by Errour not Fundamentall in itselfe But to our purpose you say Schisme is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from an other and Pag 264. N. 30. you teach that a causeless separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Put these togeather Schisme is a separation of one part of the Church from an other And Schisme is a separation from the externall communion of any Church the Consequence will be this A separation from the externall communion of any part of the Church is a separation from the part itselfe and then proportionally a separation from externall communion of the whole Church or of all Churches must be a separation from the whole Church it selfe or from all Churches and so your distinction that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church is not the same thing is confuted by your owne doctrine And though it make little to our present purpose whether Schisme be defined A separation of one part of the Church from an other as you speake for as I sayed if a separation from the Externall Communion of one parte be a separation from the parte it selfe a separation from the externall communion of the whole church must be a separation from the whole Church itselfe which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum yet you must giue me leaue to say that your definition overthrowes itselfe For the Nature and Essence of Schisme being to separate one from the Church necessarily it is cause that the party so divided is no more a member or part of that Church nor a part of any Church and so Schisme is not a separation of one part from another but the Church which remaynes after such a sparation made in externall Communion is one whole Church and Totum est cujus nihil est extra and so he who is cut off from the Church as Schismatiks are is no part of it but a non ens or nothing for as much as belongs to the Denomination of being a part of the Church in which
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
â— A man that is an Heretike c saith Schisme doth separate men from the Church S. Austine Ep 48. we are certaine that none can justly separate himselfe from the communion of all Nations And coâ—t Parmeâ— Lib. â— Cap. 5. Let vs hold it firme and sure that no good men can divide themselves from the Church And Ep. 152. Whosoever is separated from this Catholike Church albeit he thinke he lives laudably by this only wickednes that he is separated from the vnity of Christ he hath not life but the wrath of God remaineth vpon hâ—m And that no kind of witnesses be wanting against you to proue that Schisme and Heresy signify a departing from the Church Fulke saith in his Retentiue c. Pag. 85. The Popish Church is but an Hereticall Assembly departed from the vniversall Church long since Augustines departure out of this life You may remember what I cited out of Calvin Ep 141. That they were forced to make a separation from the whole world Where I beseech you marke those words from the Whole which signify that they were a Part and the vniversall Church a Whole Field of the Church Lib. 1. Cap. 13. 14. maketh it particular vnto Schismatikes and Heretiks to depart and goe out from the Church of God Dr. Lawd Pag 139. There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Why do you not tell him that he speakes strangly in saying There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And that he should haue sayd It is absolutely impossible to make a Schisme from the whole Church because the part which so divideth it selfe doth still remaine one parte of the Whole and so the Division is only of some part from another Potter Pag 75. There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himselfe Will you here put of in place of From and then say To depart of Christ himselfe and so make your Doctour speake non-sense Yourselfe Pag 170. N. 66. and Pag 272. N. 54. approue the aforesaid saying of Potter who also Pag. 57. saith whosoever perversly divides himselfe from the Catholique Communton as do Schismatiks his condition is damnable But aboue all what will you say to your owne words Pag 339. N. 20. That Heretikes always separate from the visible Church Why sâ—y you nor Heretikes separate of the Church which would be ridiculous and not from her as you say seing Heresy alwayes involues Schisme and if Hetetiks alwayes separate from the Church Heresy which is the formall cause wherby they separate must be a separation from the Church 176. Now why do you not correct Scripture Fathers Catholike Divines learned Protestants your client Potter and yourselfe as you take vpon you to controle Charity Maintayned But either you do not vnderstand what Schisme meanes or els you would be very willing the world should conceaue there is no such thing as Schisme For if you did consider that part which separates from the Church to be no Part. or member therof it were easy to see that Schisme may be defined a separation from the Church but not a separation of one part from another seing that by Schisme those men who once were a part of the Whole and com-parts with all the true members of the Whole by Schisme cease to be a part As on the other side Schisme is a departing from the true Church but not a dividing of the Church And the reason is because the Church is still one in herselfe and so Schisme is alwayes a Division from the Church taken formally as a true Church but never a division of her seing she still remaines One true Church and consequently divided in herselfe Besides when diverse Parts constitute or compound one Whole the Parts cannot be divided one from another vnless they be conceived to be divided from the Whole in order to which they haue the denomination of Parts For as long as they remaine with one Whole they remaine vnited with one another as Parts and as it is sayd Quae sunt eadem vni tertio snnt eadem interse so in proportion quae sunt vnita in vno tertio sunt vnita interse Therfore the vnion with and separation from the Whole is the measure of the vnion or separation of the Parts from one another Thus S. Thomas in the place alledged 2.2 Quest 39. Ar 1. cor saith Propriè Schismatici dicuntur qui se ab vnitate Ecclesiae separant quae est vnitas principalis Nam vnitas particularis aliquorum ad invicem ordinatur ad vnitatem Ecclesiae sicut compositio singulorum membrorum in corpore naturali ordinatur ad totius corporis vnitatem And vnless you take separation of parts in order to the Whole you destroy all separation or division For while the parts are in the Whole they are not divided but vnited And when they are divided from the Whole they are no more parts in order to those parts which remaine in the Whole of which they ceased by the division to be com-parts but become Wholes and can haue the denomination of parts only by Relation to the Whole of which they were parts before the division was made so as still vnion with or division of parts which remaine in the Whole must be taken as I may say originally from the Whole and it is impossible that two which haue been parts of one Whole can be absolutly separated from one another and not from the Whole with which if they remaine vnited they must also be vnited with one another in illo tertio in that Whole as I sayd And therfore division of parts from one another must primarily suppose a division from the Whole and your singular Of must de content to come after the coÌ„mon froÌ„ of all Divines All separation properly taken must suppose vnion and parts as parts must relate to some Whole What I sayd is proved by your owne definition that Schisme is a division of the Church which must imply that the Church is divided after which Division I hope you will not say that both the nocent and innocent the guilty and not guilty parts cease to be a Church but that they only who without cause do separate are cut of froÌ„ the Church and remaine no more a part of it Therfore their Schisme is a Divison from the Church and not a Division of the true Church which still remaines One true Church as if a corrupt part be cut of from the Body the Body still remaines one Whole nor can such a section or cutting of be rightly sayd to be a Division of the Body which still retaines its VVholeness as I may say and denomination of a Body but of one part from the whole Body and from the incorrupted Parts which remaine conjoyned in it yea the part cut of and dead ceases to be so much as a part of that Body from which it is
here your saying N. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe â—or as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things vnder his feeâ—e is mâ—st true though yet S. Paul tells vs that when it is sayd he hath put all things vnder him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things vnder him So when we say that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne may say all my substance is in this shipp and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance nor yes to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is sipportâ—d by the foundation and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you yourselves vse to say that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or els made him head of himselfe 5. Answer Are all those Protestants Cavillers who teach that we may know by Scripture it selfe that it is the word of God and consequently that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe Doth not Potter Pag 141. say That Scripture is of Divine Authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron after he had confuted the opinions of others about the private spirit and the Doctrine of Catholikes concerning the Church finally resolve that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God by certaine criteria or markes found in the Scripture it selfe And therfore it cannot be denyed but that when Protestants teach that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture they must either say that this Point of Faith Scripture is the word of God may be learned by Scripture or els contradict themselves as indeed they must and for that cause ought to grant that besides Scripture there is some other Meanes to propose Divine Revelations and Scripture it selfe with the true interpretation therof Your examples may be turned against you by those your Brethren who deny both the private spirit and the Authority of the Church for assuring vs with certainty that Scripture is the Word of God and they will tell you that if a ship must either be within itselfe or no where a marchant shewing a ship of his owne and saying all my substance is in this ship must either grant that the ship is in itselfe or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship and the like they would say of a foundation that if it support the whole house and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe it must support it selfe and then they would informe you that seing not only the contents of Scripture but also Scripture itselfe are objects revealed by God which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit which you and they hold to be a foolery nor an infallible Church which all of you hold to be Papistry it followes that Scripture must be believed for itselfe or els not be believed at all And the same we may answer ad hominem that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church but he must be head of himselfe it could not be sayd that he is head of the whole vnless it be also granted that he is head of himselfe but we deny that fond supposition that he cannot be head of the Church vnless he be head of himselfe as contrarily Protestants teach that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church nor by the private spirit and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe The same they would answer to those words he hath put all things vnder his feete that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him if indeed those first words he hath put all things vnder his feete could not be verifyed vnless he who put all things vnder his feete were put vnder him Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren except by saying that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God aÌ„d therfore there is required no infallibility in â—he Church from which you say we receiue Scripture or els that Scripture is not a materiall object which we belieue or both as indeed you affirme both that Faith is not infallible and that Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith And finally every one who hath care of his soule must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants conclude with Catholikes that for believing with certainty that Scripture is the word of God we must rely on the Church with this condition also that she be believed to be infallible which infallibility is absolutely necessary if once with all Christians we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true 6. To your N. 34. I answer That all those Bookes of Scripture are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such Before which declaration of the Church all they were very secure who differed about some Bookes because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation But for the contrary reason Protestants relying vpon the sole written word cannot be safe in regard that they not knowing what Points in particular be necessary to salvation to make all sure must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes which diverse learned men even of their owne Sect acknowledg to be Canonicall least otherwise they may chance to remaine in ignorance or errour of some matter necessary to salvation 7. The same Answer serves for your N. 36. For it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther and diverse other Bookes of Scripture as Luther speakes of them after the Definition of Gods Church to the contrary Wherof see Charity Ma. N. 9. Pag 45. 8. Your other Sections or numbers till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther whom I know you defend against your Conscience and the Canon of the English Protestant Church which now hath no existence and her 39. Articles being or having been vnder Censure may perhaps be altered I let pass not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words N. 47. directed to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it
say that in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other than Apostolique Preaching How I say could you speake thus your doctrine considered that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall and so we cannot know whether Churches be at an agreement in them and consequently cannot from such an agreement in Fundamentalls haue a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from the fountaine of Apostolique Preaching Every where you are found clearly to contradict yourselfe 59. In answer to your N. 149.150.151.152.153 I will first set downe the words of Charity Maintayned and then answer what you object Thus saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 71. N. 25. The doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of itselfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficiēt ground for infallible Faith nor a meete Judge of Controversyes If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interterpretations of Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all Controversyes of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversyes although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute another Judge of Controversyes beside Scripture alone 60. Against this discourse you object with great pompe of words If we Catholiks haue certaine and infallible meanes for the choyse of the Church then we are able with infallibility to determine all Controversyes of Faith although we pretend to make the Church our Guide And then say you N. 149. We constitute another Iudge of Controversyes besides the Church alone nay every one of vs makes himselfe a chooser of his owne Religion and of his owne sense of the Churches decrees which very thing we so highly condemne in Protestants 61. Answer we haue certaine meanes to belieue with an infallible Faith that the Catholique Church is an infallible Judge of controversyes as we haue proved hertofore at large in diverse Occasions But then to say that by this meanes i.e. by believing the Church to be the Judge of controversyes we are able of our selves with infallibility to determine all controversyes and do constitute another Iudge of controversyes besides the Church alone I am so farr from vnderstanding it that to me it seemes no better than non-sense as a man who in some cause makes choyse of a Iudge whom he believes to be just wise and in every respect fit for such an office cannot be sayd to constitute another judge beside him of whom he makes choise nor to make himselfe Iudge Do you not teach that the Church proposes to vs Canonicall Scripture and that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and yet you will not inferr from thence that the Church is a Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and not Scripture alone It is you who here N. 153 say for the latter part of this inference that every one makes himselfe judg of controversyes we acknowledge and embrace it We do make ourselves Iudges of controuersyes And this you must grant not only for the choyse of your Religion but for the sense of Scripture and consequently for determining all controversyes of Faith and so you are Iudges of controversyes as Ch Ma inferred wheras Catholikes in all controversyes hold themselves obliged to follow the determination of the Church and not of their owne vnderstanding as you doe How farr we may and do make vse of Reason in matters of Religion we haue declared aboue And even yourselfe Pag 376. N. 56. speaking of Scripture say Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath sayd so therfore it is true Which words though they cannot be spoken sincerely and with consequence by you who resolue Faith into humane probable Arguments of reason yet they shew that even in reason Reason ought to submitt to Authority We haue also shewed the difference between the Scripture which is always the same and the Decrees of the Church which in all occasions can clearly declare Her meaning if any difficulty occurre about her former Decrees or Definitions 62. But I pray where did Charity Maintayned frame this Argument which you N. 150. terme a transparent fallacy Protestants haue no meanes to interpret without errour obscure and ambiguons places of Scripture therfore plaine places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith You know there neither is nor can be any Question at all whether plaine places be not plaine to those to whom they are plaine nor whether such plaine places may not be a sufficient ground of Faith in respect of persons to whom and Matters wherin they are plaine The Point is and you know it to be so whether scripture be plaine in all Points necessary to be believed which we deny and you often affirme but can never be able to proue and I haue demonstrated that even those Texts which you pretend to be most plaine and expresly alledge for instances of such plainesse are not such but containe difficulty if we respect the sense and not the bare words which may be plaine to Pagans Jewes Turkes and to all who vnderstand the language in which Scripture was written And therfore you do not satisfy your owne Demand wherin you speake thus to Charity maintayned If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these plaine places I aske you againe can you be sure that you vnderstand what I or any man else sayes They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they haue sufficient assurance that they vnderstood at any tyme what they would haue them doe If not to what end did they heare them If they could why may not we be as well assured that we vnderstand sufficiently what we conceiue plaine in their writings 63. Answer If he who speakes be not sufficiently vnderstood he may be asked and he who askes may be satisfyed by a further declaration of the speaker which holds not in Scripture as I am forced often to repeate Besides when things are spoken the present Tyme Place Argument and other circumstances may giue much more light than when they are barely written devested of such helpes In which case if a word can be found but once in the whole Bible to signify such or such a thing perhaps it may breede a doubt whether in other places it be not so taken of which no doubt would haue beene made in case that in all places it had the same signification Yea we see
that the Apostles did not always vnderstand our B. Saviours words till he vouchsafed to declare them And I obserue your owne words May we not be as well assured that we vnderstand sufficiently what we conceiue plaine in their the Apostles writings Where insine your certainty and evidence is resolved into what we conceiue which are your owne words and is a poore ground for an Act of infallible Faith and of Protestants disagreeing among themselves doth not every one conceiue Scripture to be plaine in his favour And yet it is plaine that two contradictoryes cannot be true 64. In your N. 152. you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner In saying If they haue certaine meanes and so cannot erre me thinkes you forgett yourselfe very much and seeme to make no difference between having certaine meanes to doe a thing and the actuall doing of it As if you should conclude because all men haue certaine meanes of salvation therfore all men certainly must be saved and cannot doe otherwise as if whosoever had a horse must presently get vp and ride whosoever had meanes to fynd out a way could not neglect those meanes and so mistake it If you aske seing we may possibly erre bow can we be assured we do not I aske you againe seing your eye-sight may deceiue you how can you be sure you see the sun when you see it perhaps you may be in a dreame and perhaps you and all the men in the world haue beene so when they thought they were a wake and then only awake when they thought they dreamed 65. Answer I aske whether all points necessary to be be believed are so very evident in Scripture that one cannot erre in the meaning of them but is no lesse assured therof then he is sure he sees the Sun when he sees it Or they are not so evident If they be so evident it followes clearly that the meanes wherby they are immediatly knowne namely the very evidence of them is such as no man can possibly erre concerning them For it is impossible that our vnderstanding can dissent from a truth represented with evidence And so you haue no reason to blame Ch. Ma. seing by the meanes wherby you vnderstand necessary Points of Faith in Scripture it is impossible for you to erre If necessary Points be not so evident but that one may erre concerning them Then you must vse some meanes for vnderstanding them beside the pretended evidence which they haue of themselves which indeed comes to be not evidence but obscurity if it leaue the vnderstanding with a freedome to dissent Let therfore these meanes be such as Protestants are wont to assigne prayer knowledge in languages conferring one place with another c. Which depending vpon humane industry cannot exceed probability as we haue heard Whitaker de Eccles contr 2. Quest 4. confessing and cannot assure vs of the true sense of Scripture which is against your sayings N. 150. That you haue certayne meanes of not erring in and about the sense of those places which are so plaine and cleare that they need no interpretation and in such we say our Faith is contained For if to vnderstand such places you need the meanes and helpe of Prayer Language c it is cleare they are not so cleare that they need no interpretation And so you must be content to acknowledge in these two numbers a contrâ—diction to yourselfe and a causelesse blaming Charity Maintayned in the former of them if yourselfe speake Truth in the latter that is you must either grant that one caÌ„not erre in necessary Points of Faith or els that the Scripture is not evident but needs an interpreter of Scripture for such Points which if it need seing the meanes assigned by Protestants can affoard no more than probability only which is not sufficient to erect an act of divine Faith it followes that we must haue recourse to an infallible Living Guide Thus I haue confuted your objection against Charity Maintayned That He seemes to make no difference between having certaine meanes to doe a thing and the Actuall doing of it For I haue told you that when the meanes to doe a thing is seated in some cause which hath not freedome to the contrary Action there is good reason not to distinguish between the enjoyning such meanes and the doing of the thing or at least not doing the contrary that is in our case not erring against that which is evident in Scripture as whensoever fire hath all requisites to burne a combustible matter it cannot but doe so Now our vnderstanding is of that nature that it cannot dissent from a truth evidently proposed for such and therfore if all texts of Scripture containing necessary Points of Faith be evident as you say they must be and that otherwise they could not be necessary our vnderstanding cannot possibly dissent from them and so not to erre and not to be able to erre proue to be inseparable which holds particularly in your doctrine that certainty cannot consist without evidence aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly our vnderstaÌ„ding cannot disseÌ„t from any thing which is preseÌ„ted to it as certaine because it cannot dissent or deny that which to it is evident 66. Your instances to the contrary proue only that either you did not consider what you object or argue an excessiue confidence that the world would without examination take for true whatsoever you wrote As if say you to Ch Ma you should conclude because all men haue certaine meanes of salvation therfore all men must certainly be saved and cannot doe otherwise as if whosoever had ahorse must presently get vp and ride whosoever had meanes to find out a way could not neglect those meanes and so mistake it But all these toyes are answered already For the meanes to heaven is as our B. Saviour sayes to keepe the commandements by our freewill assisted with Gods Grace and therfore it doth not follow that although we may we must needs be saved because our will may resist Gods Grace as also it is in your will not to get vp and ride though you haue a horse but it is not in the power of our vnderstanding to dissent from evident truth Your similitude of finding a way may be turned against you if it be supposed that one hath the way before his eyes and is certaine that it is the way In which case he cannot mistake his way though by his freewill he may goe out of it as one may with his will not obserue what God commands but cannot possibly perswade himselfe that it is not commanded if it be evidently represented to his vnderstanding that it is commanded as one cannot but be sure that he sees the sun when he sees it which is your owne example to proue that we may be assured that we do not erre But then you do not well to say that our eye sight may deceiue vs or that we may possibly erre it being impossible that our eye and vnderstanding being
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
appeares out of S. Matth. Cap. 28. where some things belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee c. and other to the Church in them or to them in the Church as beside Teaching and Baptizing N. 19. Behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world which signifyes that he would be with them in their Successours who were to continue for all Ages after the death of the Apostles with whom he could not be present in themselves to the consummation of the world who were not to liue to the worlds end as you say heere Did he or could he haue saied to your Church which then was not extant I haue many things to say vnto you but you cannot beare them now So we may apply the like words Did he or could he say to his Apostles I will be with you to the worlds end when they were not to be extant But the truth is when our Saviour spoke to his Apostles our Church was then extant in the Apostles and the Apostles were to liue to the worlds end in their successours and so our Saviours promise is fulfilled of being alwaies with the Apostles in their Successours 81. You object to Charity Maintayned that In the very text by him alledged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is saied the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come But this is answered by what hath bene saied already Though it were granted that some thing was promised to the Apostles alone it doth not follow that the whole promise was so restrained as I haue shewed aboue Besides Christian Faith teaches vs many things to come as the comming of Antichrist the generall judgement and signes precedent to it The Resurrection of the dead The eternall punishment of the wicked and reward of the just c For this cause S. Anselm apud Cornelium a Lapide in 4. Ephes N. 11. teaches that by Prophets in that Text are vnderstood interpreters of Scriptures because per eas futura justorum gaudia malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant If by shewing things to come you vnderstand the Gift of Prophecy Do you hold it as certaine that every one of the Apostles had that Gift as that they were infallible in matters of Faith Are you certaine that every Apostle could haue written the Apocalyps of S. John So that indeed if you will needs haue a full parity between being led into all Truth and knowing of things to come you will be found not to be certaine that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith Morover it is to be observed that to be infallible was essentiall to the office of Apostolate or teaching the Church as the Gift of Prophecy is accidentall and was communicated to others as we read in the Acts as also it was accidentall to speak all toungs to haue bene called immediatly by our Saviour as S. Matthias was not and yet was an Apostle to haue inflicted Censure of Excommunication with some visible punishment and the like extraordinary ornaments or Priviledgs And therfore no wonder if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church though the knowledg of things to come were not though indeed de facto God hath and ever will communicate the Gift of Prophecy to his Church as is certaine by the vndoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages You see now that neither Charity Maintayned nor other Catholique writers cite the saied text by halfes as you affirme N. 72. seing the latter clause of shewing things to come makes nothing against them nor alters the sense of the text as I haue shewed But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect whom you impugne while you would perswade men that Charity Maintayned and generally our writers of controversies when they entreate of this Argument cite this text perpetually by hafes seing Dr. Potter Pag 151. cites this very same place and leaves out those words will shew you things to come for which you accuse vs of citing that sentence by halfes especially if you call to mynd that he brings that text to proue that the Church cannot faile in Fundamentall points which as I saied were no proofe if it were meant of the Apostles only as you would proue it was by the words omitted by the Doctor no less than by C Ma he will shew you things to come To all which I add that seing you say that text concerned the Apostles only it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points and therfore seing the Doctor confesses it to be verifyed in the vniversall Church she must be infallible in all Points But it is no wonder that you contradict your Client Potter since you so perpetually contradict yourself 82. In your N. 71. you seeke to divert me to the controversyes about publique service in an vnknowne tongue and communion vnder both kinds But you know Catholique Writers haue answered all that can be objected against vs in these two questoins and whatsoever you can alledg if it were of any moment as it cannot be it could only shew that Scripture even in that which to you seemes so plain is indeed obscure seing so many learned holy and laborious men see no such evidence as you pretend yea they are certaine that your pretended cleare interpretation is an Heresie Yet because you alledge against vs without any cause a greeke word edoke I must not omitt to tell you with truth that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament shamefully falsify the Greeke Text 1. Cor. 11. V. 27. saying in their Translation Whosoever shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord wheras the Greeke word signifyes vel or and so you should say Whosoever shall eate this bread Or drinke the cup c. which fraud you vse to proue the necessity of Communion in both kindes 83. Your N. 73.74 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered Only I may note that you put some Objection in a different letter which in Cha. Ma. I find not The Promise that the Holy Ghost was to remaine with the Apostles for ever was not restrained to yet is verifyed in them because they remaine for ever in their successours as you will say they remaine in their Writings Your friged interpretation of ever that is for the time of their lives is confuted by what hath bene cited out of S. Matthew Chap. 28.20 I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world And surely the end of the world signifyes a larger extent than the end of their lives Nay you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them to the tearme of their life but it seemes you make it not absolute but only conditionall even for that short tyme. For you say The spirit would abide
with them if they kept their station vnto the very end of their lives Behold an if a condition If they kept their station which if it be in their free will not to doe as your if supposes it to be then according to your Divinity they might faile and all Promise made to them proue ineffectuall neither can we be certaine that de facto they haue not failed and fallen into errour in their preaching and writing Scripture Nay do you not teach and labour to proue that the Apostles even after the receiving of the Holy Spirit which you confess was promised to abide with them for ever that is say you for their whole life and that they should never want the spirits assistance vnto the very end of their lives did erre in a command clearely revealed to them about preaching the Gospell to Gentills How then was that Promise performed if it were absolute And if only conditionall you grant no more to them than to any other neither can we be certaine that they haue not erred in other things as you say they erred in that Your alledging some Texts to proue that the word ever may be taken for the whole time of a mans life is not to any purpose vnless you had also proved that it is so vnderstood in the place of which we speak Joan 14.16 And seing even by this example the same words are capable of different senses and that Protestants cannot possibly giue any Rule which Text is to be interpreted by what others we must conclude that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith 84. But now in your N. 75. we find threates that you will work wonders and that we may not be so much overseene as to pass them without due reflection you say to Charity Maintayned This will seeme strang newes to you at first hearing and not farre from a prodigy But it is not strang that heere you doe that which you doe in divers other occasions that is impeach the infallibility of the Apostles and consequently depriue their preaching and writing and all Christian Religion of all certainty though I grant it to be very strang and a prodigy that notwithstanding this you will pretend to be a Christian and that your Book is approved by and published among Christians For besides what I noted even now about your conditionall promise made to the Apostles If they kept theyr station heere you declare clearely and at large that the Promise of which S. John speakes was appropriated to the Apostles as you speak and that it is not absolute but as you expressly say most clearly and expressly conditionall being both in the words before restrained to those only that loue God and keepe his commandements And in the words after flatly denyed to all whom the scriptures stile by the name of the world that is as the very Antithesis giues vs plainly to vnderstand to all wicked and wordly men Behold the place entire as it is set downe in your owne Bible If you loue me keepe my commandements and I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paracleâ—e that he may abide with your for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue And then speaking of the Pope you say We can haue no certainty that the Spirit of Truth is promised to him but vpon supposall that he performes the condition where vnto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expressly limited viz. That he loue God and keep his commandements and of this not knowing the Popes heart we can haue no certainty at all Doth not this interpretation and discourse clearly declare that we can haue no certainty of the Apostles infallibility because not knowing their hearts we can haue no certainty at all that when they preached and wrote they did loue God and keepe his commandements Besides in the doctrine of Protestants we cannot be certaine by certainty of Faith that the Apostles kept the commandemeÌ„ts except first we belieue Scripture and yet we caÌ„not belieue Scripture itself except first we belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to haue kept that condition of keeping the commandements Therfore we must belieue Scripture before we belieue the Apostles to keepe the commandements and be infallible and we must belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to keepe the commandements before we belieue Scripture which is an inextricable Circle and a contradiction implying finally that we belieue Scripture for it self which you confess no wise man will affirme and that the belief of Scripture should be cause of the belief of Scripture and the same thing be necessary to the first production of it self Wherefore you must either renounce this Interpretation of a conditionall Promise made yea as you expresly affirme Appropriated to the Apostles or els bid Scripture and all Christianity fare well And so you cannot haue certainty of this particular that God requires the saied condition of loue and Obedience 85. But to answer directly I say you miscite the words of S. John while you distinguish only by a comma If you loue me keepe my commandements from the following words And I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paraclete whereas both in our and in the Protestants English Bible they are distinct Sections or Verses thus N. 15 If you loue me keep my commandements And then N. 16. And I will aâ—k the Father and he will giue you an other Paraelete Where it appeares that the condition is not If you loue me I will ask the Father and he will giue you c. as you set it downe and there vpon affirme that the Promise is restrayned to those only that loue God and keep his commandements but the condition or rather Assirmation or Consequence is this If you loue me keep my commandements And so the sense is very plain and perfect and the condition is terminated in the same N. 15. And that these words If you loue me keep my commandements render a perfect sense is manifest of it self and by the like Texts of Scripture as in the same Evangelist Cap. 15. N. 14. You are my friends if you doe the things that I command you and V. 10. If you keep my precepts you shall abide in my Loue. As contrarily the holy Ghost is promised absolutely in this C 14. V. 26. The Paraclete the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things And in the argument prefixed before this Chapter in the Protestants English Bible printed Ann 1622. it is sayed Christ N. 15. requireth loue and Obedience 16. Promiseth the Holy Ghost the comforter without expressing any dependance of the saied Promise V. 15. vpon loue and obedience V. 16. As also Joan 16.13 which Text is alledged both by Charity Maintayned and Dr. Potter it is saied without any condition when he the Spirit of Truth commeth he shall teach you all Truth And Matth 16.18 these words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her which both
it remaines that all his interrogations were fully answered the very foundation vpon which they stood that the Creed containes all necessary points being demolished and in particular his interrogation What tyranny is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians Seing yourselfe acknowledge that he professes the Creed to containe all necessary points of Faith not absolutely but as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholick Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesius Chalcedon and Athanasius which are his owne words Pag 216. and therfor he must answer his owne demand What tyranny is it to impose any new vnnecessary matters c. Since the declaration of those Councells were long after the Apostles time and for this cause you expresly professe to forsake the Doctour in this his explication of the Creed as we haue seene hertofore 57. To your N. 69.70.71.72.73 I answer Ch. Ma. had reason to say that Potter citing the words of S. Paul Act. 20. V. 27. adds this glosse of his owne needfull for our salvation For the Apostle both in our translation and in the Protestant English Bible hath profitable not needfull and yourselfe here N. 69. grant the same And speaking in rigor that which is strictly profitable is not needfull or necessary nor that which is properly needfull is profitable as profitable and needfull are membra contradistincta as when we distinguish Meanes to some End that some are profitable others necessary and you know it is in Logick no good division wherin one of the membra dividentia includes the other and therfor your saying to Ch Ma I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoeuer is needfull for salvation is very profitable is spoken with greater confidence then truth But for our present purpose seing the Apostle Uers 20. sayth I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable and sayth not I haue withdrawen nothing that was needfull it followes that the Apostle taught not only necessary but also profitable things and thence I inferr that when he sayth V. 27. I haue not spared to declare vnto you all the counsel of God he meant not only of necessary but also of profitable points and therfore of more thē are contained in the Creed For which cause he C Ma. had reasō to take notice of this place in particular which clearly shewes out of the very text of Scripture which Potter cites his interrogations to be of no force but only to begg the question by supposing vntruly that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed To salue this you say N. 70. It is not D. Potter that beggs the Question but you that mistake it which is not here in this particular place whether all points of simple Beliefe necessary for the salvation of the primitiue Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol for that and the proofes of it follow after in the next § Pag. 223. of Dr. Potter but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to belieue now which was not so from the beginning 58. Answer Dr. Potter Pag 216.217 sayeth The Creed of the Apostles is sayd generally by the Schoolemen and Fathers to comprehend a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentall truths and to imply a full rejection of Fundamentall heresies and hath been receaved by Orthodox Christians as an absolute summarie of the Christian Faith For proofe wherof we will first argue ad hominem and teach the Mistaker how to esteeme of his Creed out of his owne Masters And then having alledged divers Catholik Writers to proue his Assertion he adds it were easy to multiply testimonies to this effect out of their late and ancient schoole Doctors if it were not tedious All agree that the Creed briefely comprehends all Fundamentall principles or rudiments of Faith that it is a distinctiue Character severing Orthodox believers from insidels and heretiks that it is a full perfect and sufficient summary of the Catholik Faith Thus he And immediatly after sayth Their judgment that is the judgment of Catholik Authors whom he alledged herein that is for the purpos of proving the Creed to containe all Fundamentall Articles seemes full of reason And his reasons he setts downe in these words immediatly following For how can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times May the Church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it And so he goes on with his interrogations and in the same context hath these words of which we speake The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation What Tyranny then is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians I pray you consider whether he doth not speake expressly of the Apostles Creed when he saith How can it be necessary for any Chrictian to haue more in this Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their time And doe not you N. 15. expressly vnderstand these words of the Doctor of the Apostles Creed as it is a full comprehension of that part of the beliefe of the Apostles which cōtaines only the necessary articles of simple Faith And consequently when the Doctour askes How can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had his demand must be How can it be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Creed containes Which evidently supposes that the Creed containes all things necessary otherwise it might be necessary to belieue some thing not contained in the Creed Besides what connexion can ther be in the Doctours words taken in your sense which will make him argue in this manner No Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed who certainly believed more then is contained in the Creed Therfor the judgment of those who teach that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points is full of reason And indeed the Doctor had no occasion at all to proue that it can not be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Apostles did belieue neither did Ch Ma say any such thing And why doe you N. 67. exact of C Ma an āswer to D. Potters interrogations if they proue only that no Christiā is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed which as I sayd Ch Ma never denied Will you haue him C Ma confute his owne judgment and answer those arguments which were intended only to proue his owne beliefe Thus while you will be clearing the Doctour from begging the question you make him with great paines and pompe of words make many patheticall interrogations nothing to the purpose and grant that which is the only maine point that those his interrogations proue not that all fundamentall points be contained in the Creed Chuse of these inconveniences which you please
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
of the Gospell Do you not profess through your whole Book that voluntary error against any revealed truth is a damnable sinne And what sinne can it be except the sinne of Heresy But of this particular els where Never was there Writer so repugnant to himself as you are Now for your N. 41. If the true Church cannot be without Succession of Bishops whatsoever Church wants them cannot be a true Church as if speach were necessary to the being of a man as it is not want of it would be a sure argument that he is not a man and so your argument that though speach be a certaine signe of a living man yet want of it is no sure Argument that he is dead is retorted against yourselfe 37. You would drawe me in your N. 42. to enter vpon an vnreasonable discourse wherein you do not so much impugne the Catholique Church as all Christianity and you are still like yourself in despising S. Austine and saying that the places alledged out of him by Ch Ma N. 24. deserue not the name of a proofe and yet S. Austine Lib de Pastorib Cap 8. saieth in express tearmes the thing for which he was alledged namely that not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the â—arth but that Faithfull people are dispersed through the whole world And the arguments which you bring to the contrary are answered by these words of S. Austine in the same place Not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spred over the whole face of the earth some heere some there yet they are waÌ„ting in no place they know not one an other One Sect for example in Africa ' an other Heresy in the East an other in Aegipt an other in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers One Mother Pride hath begot them all as one Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity vnion To this true distinction of S. Austine we maie add that sometyme when the Fathers speak of the multitude of some particular Sects they meane of some particular place or Country but not comparing those Heretiques with the whole vniversall Church diffused through the whole world You tell vs S. Austine saies Ep. 48. ad Uinc the Professors of error surpassed the Number of the Professors of Truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea doe the starres of the Heaven But I find in that Epistle these words of S. Austine Fortasse non frustra dictum sit de Semine Abrahae sicut stellae Coeli sicut arena quae est ad oram maris vt in stellis Coeli pauciores firmiores clarioresque intelligantur in arena autem maritimi Litoris magna multitudo infirmorum atque carnalium In which words it seemes that S Austine speakes not of Professors of error as you say but of perfect and imperfect Catholiques which is nothing to our purpose 38. Your N. 43.44 containe nothing which hath not bene answered or els is of no consideration You find fault with Ch. Ma that being to proue Protestants to be guilty of Heresie he strikes into an other accusation of them that the Faith even of the Truth they hold is not indeed true Faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this Faith makes them Heretiques Aristotle believed there were Intelligences which moved the spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion aÌ„d will you make Aristotle an heretique because he believed so Answer Ch Ma having proved Protestants to be guilty of heresie and consequently not capable of salvation because Heresie is a deadly sinne if everie Heresie haue also this effect that it destroyes all true supernaturall Faith even of all those points wherein they doe not erre and that true supernaturall Faith is necessary to salvation how could Ch. Ma. without prevarication forbeare to infer that seing Protestants are proved to be guilty of Heresie they must be subject to the inseparable effect thereof which is to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith and so be incapable of Salvation vpon a double Title that is both for a positiue error against Faith and for want of supernaturall infallible Faith caused by that error Whatsoever you are pleased to say yet I belieue every one beside your self will conceyue that Ch Ma did not digress if indeed it be true that every Heresie destroyes all Faith as he proved it does but never dreamed that every Heresie makes the true belief though only humane of all other Articles to be Heresie or that Aristotle was an Heretique because he believed only with an humane perswasion that there were Intelligences which moved the spheares but if hee or any other believed all the mysteryes of Christian Faith only with an humane perswasion as he believed those Intelligences no good Christian can belieue that such a perswasion were sufficient for salvation and so your Argument turnes against yourself Neither haue you any reason to say that Ch Ma hath disjoyned his discourse vpon this Point For it was necessary that first the grounds should be laied and the nature of Faith declared before he could by degrees proue Protestants to be Heretiques and thereby to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith necessary to salvation 39. Your N. 45.46 haue bene answered in divers occasions You overlash exorbitantly when N. 47. you say to Ch Ma Do you not see and feele how void of reason and how full of imprety your sophistry is And why Let the Reader judge of the cause Ch Ma saieth Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his owne opinions are true and that he hath vsed such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture as praier conferring of divers Texts c This supposition not affirmation being premised that Protestants haue vsed such meanes as themselves prescribe for interpreting and yet that they disagree in many importantmatters of Faith it cleerely followes that the meanes which they prescribe are not certaine nor effectuall seing they being put in practise attaine not that End for the procuring whereof they were prescribed From whence will follow this principally intended conclusion that the only effectuall meanes to compass that end must be to acknowledg an infallible Living Guide And I pray what impiety or sophistry is there in this You say The first of those suppositions that every Protestant is perswaded that his opinions are true must needs be true but the second is apparently false I meane that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stands vpon no certaine grounds because the disagreements of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived 40. Answer If every Protestant be
it by other Meanes which is by the Magistery of other men Faith comes by hearing that is by his Church which he hath commanded vs to heare vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes or extraordinary lights motions or rapts And so this very Providence of God in permitting some scripture to be lost or questioned for a tyme proves the necessity of a Living Guide and the no-necessity or no sole-sufficiency of scripture and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide 53. But then say you How is the Church an infallible keeper of sâ—ripture which hath suffered some bookes to be lost It is easy for vs to answer that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost we are sure the Church can and will supply that defect by the assistance which God hath promised Her as your Volkelius de vera Relig L. 6. C. 19. affirmes and endeavours to prove that by scripture alone the Church may be restored though she were supposed totally to haue fayled which conceit of his though it be but a meere chimera since it appeares by experience that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to be believed yet it demonstrates that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written But this answer cannot serue Protestants who on the one side cannot be assured that in those scriptures which were lost there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith and on the other are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture consists not in this that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes but that she be so directed as no scripture or other Meanes be lost if indeed they be necessary for salvation 54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority and Canonicallness must be answered by Protestants who receyue for Canonicall some books of which once there was some doubt neither will they pretend to restore to them authority or Canonicallness which in themselves they could never loose for what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written but only we may come to know that which we did not know or to be assured of that wherof some doubted Which yet you must not so vnderstand as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes and much less that she did deny or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning theÌ„ as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles and the Church in due tyme even by occasion of such doubt or denyall declared the Truths contrary to those Heresyes to be arricles of Faith and those books of which some doubted to be Canonicall Thus Potter Pag 216. teaches that the Apâ—â—â—â—es Creed as it was further opened and explayned in some parts by occasion if emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Conseantmople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius contains all fundamentall Points of Faith And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonicall nay degrading them from the number of articles of Faith aÌ„d putting theÌ„ among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For the church did not omit to declare in due tyme and vpon fit or necessary occasioÌ„ that they were Canonicall as the ancieÌ„t Councell of Nice of whose Creed your Church of England Art 8. saieth it ought throughly to be receaved aÌ„d believed by occasioÌ„ of the daÌ„nable heresy of Arius with whom you and your SociniaÌ„s agree declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith or put among disputable problemes aÌ„y Part of true Canonicall scripture aÌ„d therfor Cha Ma sayd truly that never aÌ„y booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall was questioÌ„ed or rejected for apocriphall either by the church or any Catholique to whom such a DefinitioÌ„ was sufficiently notifyed though Heretiks will still be doing what pride aÌ„d obstinacie may suggest In the meane tyme you will find that I haue already aÌ„swered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha Ma that never any book or syllable once defined c and of which you are pleased to say certainly it is a bold assertion but extremely false aÌ„d say Hee Cha Ma were best ruâ—b his forhead hard and say c But our answer is very obvious that the booke of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of S. James and to the Heb which you mention were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall yet that did not hinder but afterward some might be ignorant or doubt of them as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter You cite S. Gregory L 9. Morall C. 13. calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but L. 19. C. 17. which you might haue learned out of Potter who P. 259. cites the same authority as I haue set it downe This I would not haue noted if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter Potter I say makes the same objection out of S. Gregory and Cha Ma Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18. answers it at large and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did These then be the words of Charity Maintayned what you alledg out of S. Gergory is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and divine scriptures but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius or Legat at
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
errour if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue even Fundamentall points must be damnable Which words you shamefully conceale out of guiltyness that they prevented all your Answers about Ignorance or such accidentall and variable circumstances to which you sly before you gaue them Seing it appeares that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed and N. 15. you say That such Points are fundamentall Our B. Saviour saith S. Marke 16.16 he that does not belieue shall be damned And S. Paul Gal 5.20.21 having reckoned some vices and among the rest Sects concludes They who doe these things shall not obtaine the kingdome of Heaven Will you now stand vp and blaspheme and say that our Saviour and S. Paul should not haue pronounced damnation against disbelievers Sects and Heretykes without adding your limitations to wit vnless ignorance excuse or a generall Repentance obtaine pardon 21. In your N. 15. you giue a new explication of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall That these Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knoweth them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently How many things may be observed in these words First it answers not plainly to the Question of Ch Ma which was whether is there in such denyall of a Point contained in Scripture and sufficiently proposed as Ch. M. expressly speakes any distinction betwixt Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall sufficient to excuse from Heresy As certainly there is not Secondly by this distinction of yours all that is sufficiently proposed to be contained in Scripture is a Fundamentall Point and every errour in such Points must be a Fundamentall errour and destroy Faith Church and salvation and so you grant what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question though you thought not fitt to Answer it clearly and in direct termes but to involue things by talking of matters nothing to the purpose and therfore I say Thirdly Points deducible from Scripture but probably only are not Points of Faith which requires certitude but may be denyed without sin if one haue probable reason for his denyall as yourselfe confess N. 14. that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contayned in Scripture if he who denyes it knew it to be so or haue no probable reason to doubt of it Otherwise not Ch Ma as I sayd spoke expressly of Points sufficiently knowne to be contayned in Scripture that is of matters of Faith and by what logicke can you distinguish Points of Faith into Points which are of Faith and points which are not of Faith as things which are deduced from Scripture probably only are not matters of Faith as we haue seene out of your owne words Doth not Logick teach that the Diuisum must be affirmed of everie one membrorum dividentium and will you affirme faith of that which is not Faith 23. In your N. 16. To the Question of Ch Ma whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture you answer It was never alledged to any such purpose But as in other Points so in this you speake for Protestants without any commission or warrant from them For who knowes not that nothing is more common with them than to say that Protestants may be saved and are brethren as agreeing in the substance of Faith because all of them belieue the Creed which reason were plaine non-sense if they may belieue the Creed and yet not be of one Faith nor hope of Salvation by reason of their disagreement in other Points Or what availes it them to agree in necessariò credendis all which you say the Creed containes which yet is very false if they differ in agendis in Articles of Faith by which they are directed for Christian Practise Seing Protestants differ not only in credendis but in agendis Howsoever I take what you giue that the Creed cannot be pertinently alledged as if believing it alone Protestants may disagree in other Points and yet remaine Brethren and so by this very answer you grant what Charity Maintayned intended to proue that disagreement in any one Point of Faith be it great or little cannot stand with Salvation on his side whose errour is culpable As wholosome meate taken alone may nourish but if the same man receiue poyson he shall not escape death in vertue of that meate which otherwise might haue conserved him in life and health Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu One damnable errour is enough to worke perdition though a man belieue all Truths except that which is contrary to such an errour 22. I haue no more to say about this first Chapter except only that you might haue comprized the substance therof in few lines or words if you had not perverted the state of the Question by flying to accidentall and changeable circumstances and vsing needless and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances CHAP XI The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion 1. I Find by experience That the reducing of your dispersed and often repeated discourses to some heads frees me of much vnnecessary labour which otherwise must haue beene spent in speaking to every particular Section of yours For in this Chapter I find litle but either passion or calumny or begging of the Question or what is answered already till I come to your N. 30. which also containes nothing but a matter of fact whether Brierly and Ch. Ma and other Catholique Writers haue abused Hooker in saying that he teaches that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God by the testimony of scripture itselfe but by some other meanes namely the Church For my part I haue read and considered the place cited by Ch Ma out of Hooker Lib 3. Sect 8. and find that you are like those charitable people who are content to want one eye vpon condition that their adversary be deprived of both You are willing that Hooker contradict Himselfe yourselfe and evident reason itselfe rather than he should seeme to favour vs. I say he must contradict reason which can never proue that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration as I know you will not deny seing all the contents of Scripture might haue bene set downe in writing without the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost You say Pag 114. N. 156. If there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may belieue a Booke of S. Austines to containe nothing but the truth of God
you would spend tyme in such toyes The maine Question being whether the Church or Scripture be Judge or Rule of Controversyes in Faith Charity Maintayned N. 19. proves that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge because it is not intelligible to all that is to vnlearned persons as the Church is and therfore inferrs that not the Scripture but the Church must be Judge And is not that a good consequence Besides you say that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his N. 19. which you impugne vndertooke only to proue that Scripture is not a Judge Therfore you grant that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place though he added by way of supererogation that the Church must be that Judge which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge it being supposed that either the Scripture or Church must be A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent and most important Truth 31. The words of the Apostle Rom 14.5 Let every one abound in his owne sense are prophanely applyed by you as if every one might follow his owne sense for the interpretation of Scripture which delivers Divine Revelations and you confess that to disbelieue objects so revealed is damnable in it selfe S. Paul speakes of things indifferent and which at that tyme were neither commanded not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law which then was mortua but not mortifera dead but not deadly 32. Your N. 104. till the N. 106. inclusiuè haue beene answered at large You suppose N. 108. and N. 113. that to find out the true Church every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine through all Ages or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first Age as you speak N. 108. Both which we deny and affirme that the Catholique Church of every Age carryes along with her so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour that no man who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness can chuse but clearly see the difference and behold a way so cleare ita vt stulti non errent per eam This answer is solid and evident for vs. But you who teach that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the Churches of all Ages and not for the Testimony of the present Church how will you enable all men to examine whether the Scripture and much more whether every Booke and parcell of Scripture hath bene delivered by all Churches even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church and by it include the Apostles Wherin we may vse these your owne words N. 108. This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no vnlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be vnlearned You say also How shall he an vnlearned man possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors which held always the same doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary vnless he hath first examined what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult worke than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge But I would know how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age except by the monuments and Tradition of all the Ages which intervene betwixt the first Age and his which no vnlearned can doe because he that can doe it cannot be vnlearned And so it seemes you will haue vnlearned men despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith Church and salvation Will you haue them passe as it were persaltum immediately from this present Age to the first or Primitiue Age of the Church without the helpe of writings or other meanes of the middle Ages What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes except an infallible beliefe that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre And that otherwise all will be brought to vncertaintyes euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge 32. For Answer to your N. 110. till the 122. inclusiuè I say No man indued with reason will deny the vse of Reason even in matters belonging to Faith But we deny that Reason is not to yield to Authority when assisted by Gods Grace it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide and Authority to which all must submitt and so as it were cease to be different particular men and be in a manner one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge for want wherof Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided into as many opinions as they are men of different vnderstanding and will yea one man is divided from himself as he alters his Opinions Reason then may dispose or manuduct vs to Faith but the Object into which Faith is resolved is the Divine Revelation at which Reason did point and to which it must submitt Otherwise Faith were but Opinion which even Dr Potter affirmes to be a good consequence And it should not be the Gift of God but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature and the Habit be an acquired and not infused Habit which is evidently against Scripture as I proved in the Introduction I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do as if the places which you alledg N. 116. for trying of Spirits did signify that we are to try them by humane Reason and not by the Doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke the very quintessence of Socinianisme 33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say N. 29. What good states men would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church And N. 22. What confusion to the Church what danger to the Commonwealth this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man For if it be free for every one to thinke as he pleases who will hinder him from vttering his thoughts in matters which he conceives belong to Faith and to conforme his practise to his thoughts and words And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church and sedition in the Commonwealth And therfore what you say N. 122. that men only interpret for themselves is not alwaies true but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other both Private ād Publicke Persons and Communityes if their thoughts chance to pitch vpon some object which may be cause of mischiefe 34. Howsoever N. 118.
You seeke to shift off the place of S. Austine which Charity Maintayned cited N. 21. You see that you goe about to overtrow all Authority of Scripture and that every mans mynd may be to himselfe a rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Scripture Lib 32. cont Faust Yet it is certaine by Reason and Experience of Protestants and other old and moderne Sectaryes that to take away a Living Judge is to make every mans mynd a Rule what he is to allow or disallow in every Scripture For the Circle of which you speake here and in many other places I haue shewed hertofore at large that no such thing can with any probability be objected against vs but most clearly and vnanswerably against your Brethren 35. It seemes you were well furnished with idle tyme when N. 122. it should be 121. you could at large examine and seriously exagitate these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 66. N. 22. Behold what goodly safe Propounders of Faith arise in place of Gods vniversall visible Church which must yield to a single Preacher a neighbour a man himselfe if he can read or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read Which words good safe Propounders of Faith who sees not to be spoken ironicè out of just indignation that men should reject the determination of Pope or Church as Potter expressly does in that Page 247. and then send vs to the Declaration of a particular Preacher of a Neighbour c Surely the Doctor having rejected the Pope and Church should haue proposed some better and safer meanes and did ill to propound such as every one sees are fallible and in no wise safe But I shall be guilty of your fault if I stay longer vpon such trifles 36. Your N. 123. hath beene answered already and in your N. 124. you do not so much impugne Charity Maintayned as Dr Potter cited by Him Part 1. Pag 67. N. 23. in these words Dr Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a Living Iudge in the Iewish Church indued with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment as all Points belonging to Divine Faith are The question then must be not whether Dr Potter spoke true but whether Charity Maintayned cited him truly as I am sure He did For the Doctor Edit 2. Pag 25. Lin 2. a fine writes thus The High Priest in cases of moment had a certaine Priviledge from errour if he consulted the divine Oracle by the judgement of Vrim or by the breast-plate of judgement wherin were Vrim and Thummim wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Thus He. And that you may see he speakes of such an infallibility as He denyes to the Pope and Church Marke his words immediatly following If any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for Oracles without examination Till then his words with vs weigh so much as his reasons no more Where you see He grants to the high Priest so great and so large a Priviledge that if any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for Oracles without examination Which is a large grant and from which every good Christian may well inferr that if such an infallibility were granted to the high Priest and Synagogue to the Jewes much more ought we to yield an absolute infallibility to the Vicar and Church of Christ 37 But N. 124. You answer or Object First Where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church when they should haue received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment 38. Answer Possibili posito in esse nullum sequitur absurdum Nor is it any wonder that what was prophecyed should be performed Perpetuity was not promised to the Old Law of which it is sayd Ezech 7.26 The Law shall perish from the Priest but to the Church of Christ of which it is sayd the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her The Church is free and signifyed by Sara wife to Abraham the Synagogue was signifyed by Agar the bond woman Gal 4.24 Agar was sent away and repudiated not Sara The Church is vniversall in respect of all that shall be saved because none can be saved out of it as even Calvin expressly grants Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 4. Extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio nec vlla salus But diverse were saved out of the Synagogue The Synagogue was not perfect Heb 7.19 The Law brought nothing to perfection And in this sense the ceremonyes and Sacraments of the Synagogue are called weake and poore elements Gal. 4.9 But the Church of Christ is perfect and the Sacraments of the New Law not only signify but giue Grace For which cause S. Austine in Psalm 73. saith The Sacraments of the new Testament giue salvation the Sacraments of the Old promised a Saviour The Synagogue contayned a shadow of good things to come Heb 10.1 The Church hath the light itselfe that is Christ John 1.9 No wonder then if the shaddow faile when the fullness of light appeares and no wonder if our Saviour being present at the Councell of the Jewes and having so preached the Gospell that after some houres he sayd Consummatum est It is consummate No wonder I say if the Jewes might be permitted at that tyme to erre S. Leo Serm 6. de Passion saith Tu verò he speakes to Caiphas a quo jam alienabatur haec dignitas ipse tibi es executor opprobrij ad manifestandum finem veteris instituti pertinet eadem diruptio Sacerdotij He speakes of Caiphas tearing his garments Contrarily you may remember that the Priests being consulted by Herod about the Messias did giue a true answer concerning him Yet good Sir you may reflect that the Point for which the high Priest directly and immediatly sayd He hath blasphemed was not because he then expressly pretended to be the Messias but because he made himselfe the Son of God vpon which Caiphas did rend his garments and afterward they accused him before Pilate because he made himselfe the Son of God and do not you with other Socinians hold it to be indeed a blasphemy to say that our Saviour Christ is the Son of God and consubstantiall to the Eternall Father and do they not in their Catechisme expressly say that it is against Scripture and rectam rationem right reason Which wicked heresy of yours being once supposed to be true the high Priest may easily be excused from errour and blasphemy and so by this example you in particular ought not to proue that he erred in a case of moment but that he spoke truth Neither can you blame him for taking the words of our Saviour that he was the Son of God in a litterall sense seing all orthodoxe Believers vnderstand it so as indeed it is so to be vnderstood And in the meane