nor of the will of man but of God are borne Ephes 1.4 As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity and V. 13.14 In whom you also when you had heard the word of truth the Gospel of your saluation in which also belieuing you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise which is the pledge of our inheritance This promise is made to vs and so we being the Creditours the pledge must remaine with vs and signed signifyeth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall Like to this we reade Ephes 4.23.24 Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holyness of the truth and V. 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God in which you are signed vnto the day of redemption And 2. Cor 1.21 He that annoynted vs God who also hath sealed vs given the pledge of spirit in our harts Rom. 6.23 The stipends of sinne death but the grace of God life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14 Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God 1. Cor 3.16.17 Know you not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwelleth in you The temple of God is holy which you are 2. Cor 6.16 You are the temple of the liuing God as God sayth because I will dwell and walke in them Ephes 2.21.22 In whom all building framed togeather groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord in whom you also are built togeather into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost 2. Timoth 1.14 Keepe the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs. Ioan 6.57 As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father and he that eateth me the same shall liue by me Who can deny but that life signifyes an intrinsecall permanent thing XLIV To these authorityes of holy Scripture which clearly proue that just men are such by a gift inherent and not due to nature but supernaturall we might add conuincing Reasons grounded in principles of faith if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large But I will content my selfe with one taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we haue alledged and many more might be brought in this manner God concurres to certaine Actions v. g. Belieuing hoping c. with a particular influence aboue the naturall exigence of humane nature therfore such Actions are both Good and Supernaturall Good because it were impiety to say that God doth or can by speciall motion produce an ill and sinfull Action Supernaturall because no naturall cause alone can produce them nor hath any naturall exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerfull cause as though our soule cannot be produced by any naturall Cause or Agent yet there is an exigence in nature that it be created by God when sufficient dispositions are preexistent in the Body Now it being once granted that there are good and supernaturall Actions it followes that there must be in our soule some supernaturall powers or facultyes as connaturall Principles or Causes of such Actions therfor such Powers must be grāted as in thēselues are supernaturall and absolutely good without any tincture or staine or inclination to sinfulness Which sequeles are so cleare that protestants not deny them but grant at least the supernaturall Habits of the three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charity which is sufficient for our present purpose though I know not any generall ground or doctrine of theirs for which they doe or must deny the supernaturall infused Habits of Morall Vertues but they denie that either by these or any other quality or Gift we are just in such manner as that we do not still remayne stayned with habituall deadly sinne which heresy is clearly confuted by the Elogiums of the Fathers and Texts of Scripture alledged in this and the former Sections XLV For if deadly sinne still remaine how doth Grace take away the rust of sinne make the soule resplendent whiten it enlighten and make vs like to God is it the beauty and brightnesse of our mynd the picture and image of God the garment of heauenly beauty purity derived from Christ the first stole the riches of the diuine essence the marke of God since deadly sinne is of a direct opposite nature and produces contrary effects XLVI How shall holy Scripture be verifyed in saying that as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made just if we remaine truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam but not truly just by the obedience of Christ who merited for vs iustice and grace How is it true that if in the offence of one Death raigned by one much more they that receiue the aboundance of grace and of donation and of justice shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ For if sinne remaine Death also remaines with which Life cannot raigne How can the holy Ghost be giuē vs while we persist in sinne How can he abide in God and God in him in whom sinne and satan abides How can Faith worke by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sinne than which nothing is more repugnant to charity whose inseparable effect is effectually to detest all mortall sinne how is he a new creature who is in state of sinne which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man not of Christ How doth he cleaue to God and is one spirit with him who cleaueth to sinne and is one spirit with it vnles men haue a mynd to blaspheme and say that the spirit of sinne and the spirit of God is all one how can he who abides in God and God in him beare much fruite if ioyntly he abide in sinne and sinne in him Yea for this very cause that sinne still abides in man these heretikes teach that all our workes or fruites are deadly sinnes so farr are they from being fruites of Gods abiding in vs And how doth this agree with that saying 1. Ioan. 3.9 Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seed abideth in him seing sinne the seed of the serpent abides in him Or how doth the continuall breach of Gods commandements agree with what is sayd V. 24. He that keepeth his commandements abideth in him How can regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost powred vpon vs aboundantly stand with deadly sinne which is directy opposite to regeneration and renouation How is the seale and pledge of spirit in our harts togeather with the seale and pledge of the diuell How can the vnction which we haue receiued from him abide in vs in company of deadly sinne How are men partakers of the Diuine nature while they remayne in sinne which is most opposite to God and all the Diuine perfections How cā we be called frendes being deadly
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
and supernaturall Objects hold so great disproportion with humane Reason and contrariety with our naturall inclinations that they appeare either hard or impossible and no more apprehensible by possession than comprehensible by reason I beseech you tell me sincerely what you thinke would haue been the Success of S. Paules preaching to the Athenians against their false Gods and for the true Messias and Resurrection of the dead if he had told them clearly that they could haue no certainty of those or any other Mysteryes of Christianity 111. Vpon these grounds it appeares that your Objections are of no force and in particular that which you did propose as vnanswerable What man say you was there ever so madly in loue with a present penny but that he would willingly spend it vpon any litle hope that by doyng so he might gaine an hundred thousand pround This I say proves nothing at all because as you nakedly deliver it it proves too much and yourself and all Protestants and all Christians must answer it as being manifestly repugnant to the experience of all men who surely find greater difficulty naturally speaking to keepe the commandements to forgive and do good to their deadly enemyes to suffer persecution to beare their Cross to deny themselves c. then they could even possibly find in spending a single penny in the case you propose devested of any accidentall difficulty or aggravating circumstance only considering the disproportion betweeÌ„ a penny and so many thousand pounds which is so vast and evident to sense and reason that the will remaynes determined and in a manner necessitated to giue so litle for so much and a man greedy of gaine would in some sort find as great difficulty in such a case not to giue a penny for so many pounds as to giue so many pounds for a penny which in respect of those thousands lookes like nothing compared to something But the difference betweene earthly and heavenly things though it be in it selfe incomparably greater than any disproportion can be conceyved betweene worldly objects compared amongst themselves yet to vs it appeares not with evidence to be so and therfore our vnderstanding and will need the support and certainty of a high and Divine ranke to supply the evidence of reason or sense aÌ„d resist all kind of temptations For which cause Faith is called the substance of things hoped for and an Argument of things not seene which therfor in order to vs who by nature are strangers to mysteryes so sublime must receyue being existence and subsistence from a firme and certaine belief And now Sir is it indeed as easy to keepe the commandements which many of those whom you call Brethren hold impossble to be kept and Catholikes belieue it cannot be done without Gods speciall Grace as it is to spend a penny for gayning so many pounds because our Saviour hath so revealed that to giue a cup of could water which is not worth a penny for his sake shall not want a reward iâ—sinitely greater not only than millions of pounds but of millions of worlds and yet we see men are not so liberall to the poore as they must needs be if your objection were of force and that there were the same proportion betweene earthly and heavenly things as there is between earthly things compared with one another If keeping the Commandements be as easy as to spend a penny for gaining thousands of pounds how comes it that so few keepe and so many breake them which scarcely any Christian would yea in some sense could do if your case did hold no less in heaveÌ„ly things theÌ„earthly How could the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost be necessary for keeping the commandements as in the introduction we shewed if it be as easy to keepe them as to spend a penny for gayning thousands of pounds How comes that pious woman in the Gospell to be so highly commended by God incarnate for offering a mite if it be so very easy to forgoe things present vpon hope of a reward after this life 112 But let vs alter your case a litle and vest it with some particular circumstances For example that you had but one or very few pence and apprehended them to be necessary for present expences as worldly men conceyue all they haue to be too litle for their occasions that your life or health depended on it as Esau apprehended of the mease of potage for which he sold his inheritance that it must not be given once only but every day and hower as it happens in our endeavour to keepe the Commandements For The life of man vpon earth is a warfare Iob 7.1 let vs I say confider your case with these or the like circumstances and then answer whether it would appeare so easy as you made it Or can you proue by it so stated that any faith or any hope will serue to keepe the commandements which are hard to flesh and bloud which must continually be kept and therfore require an incessant Vigilancy and solicitude which oblige vs to loose fortunes health and life rather then committ any one sin You cannot but see the weakness of your Argument and the necessity yourselfe and all Christians haue to answer it 113. But there remaynes yet an Argument of higher consideration against you who discourse like yourselfe that is a Socinian and Pelagian as if the Commandements could be kept by the strength ordirection of reason alone or as if the will could of it selfe performe or avoyde whatsoever the vnderstanding dictates to be performed or avoyded without particular Grace conferred for the sacred Merits of our Blessed Saviour which is a Luciferian pride evacuating the fruite of his life and Death Wheras all Orthodox Christians who belieue the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost to be necessary for true Obedience are therby assured that the will hath not of it selfe force to follow or fly whatsoever the vnderstanding proposes to be embraced or avoyded and consequently it is no good Argument The vnderstanding directs vs to do this Therfor our will may do it without the particular Grace of God which if it be necessary to the will for working it must also be necessary in the vnderstanding for Believing with a supernaturall Divine Assent without which God doth not giue Grace to the will for keeping the Commandements which holds particularly in your Principle that Faith is the cause of Charity and then if the effect be aboue the force of nature much more the cause must be so Morover if Faith be but probable and consequently only naturall which sequele I haue proved aboue it cannot be a proportionable meanes to supernaturall Eternall Happynesse and so you must hold that even the Beatificall Vision is but naturall which if it be how will you moue men with your specious but empty words to keepe hard wayes Psam 16. V. 4. for an End meerly naturall and proportioned to a probable and changeable faith which may proue false
poynt so prime a principle in Christian Diuinity so intrinsecall and essentiall to Christianity so fully effectually and frequently declared and vrged in Holy Scripture that the greatest enemyes of Gods grace Pelagius and his fellowes vvere forced to acknowledg it in vvords though dissemblingly XV. The same necessity of Grace is taught by the Protestant Church of England once so stiled in the 10. Article of the 39. in these vvords The condition of man after the fall of Adâ—m is such that he cannoâ— turne and prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works to Faith and calling vpon God wherfore we haue no power to dâ—e good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the Grace of Ged by Christ preuenting vs that we may haue a good will and working with vs when we haue that good will If anie say these Articles are now of small account and little less then disarticled I answer they haue this specious title Articles agreed vpon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Prouinces and the whole Cleargie in the Conuocation holden at London in the yeare 1562. For auoiding diuersities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion If now they carry so small authority their Title should haue bin directly contrary to what it is Articles agreed vpon for the establishing diuersityes of opinions and for the auoiding of consent touching true Religion As these Atticles are now despised so what soeuer shall euer be proposed or sett downe by any other will neuer be to any purpose for the establishing of consent in matters of Faith and Religion till England returne to the roote from which it hath diuided it selfe and seriously reflect into what precipices it is fallen by forsaking Rome and rejecting an jnfallible liuing judge of controversyes for who can giue any man of iudgment a satisfactory reason vvhy so many pretended Bishops vvere not of as good credit as others or wy others are not as much to be belieued as those Bishops I beseech euery one to whom the saluation of his soule is deare to ponder in good earnest this consideration and then to obey S. â—hons saying Apoc. 2.5 Be myndfull from whence thou art fallen and doe pennance SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Belieue XVI FAith being as the Apostle sayth Hebr. c. 11.1 the substance of things to be hoped for and foundation of our spirituall life if it proceede from our naturall forces or reason the vvhole edifice of our saluation must be ascribed to our selues vvhich vvere a most proude and luciferian conceypt and yet I reade in M. Chillingworth Pag. 375. n. 55. these words Neither do we follow any priuate meÌ„ but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and REASON which is also the gist of God giuen to direct vs in all our actions in the vse of this rule And through his vvhole booke speaking of that Faith vvhich God requires of all men as their duty he teaches that it is only such as is proportionable to humane probable Inducements or a Conclusion by rationall discourse euidently deduced from such probable Premises Pa. 36. n. 9. He speakes of jnfusion as of a particular fauour aboue the ordinary measure of Faith And n. 8. God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as much as the Premises deserue And Pag. 212. n. 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion then the Premises deserue to build an infallible Faith vpon Motiues that are only highly credible and not infallible And Pa. 381. n. 74. He speaking of our Catholique Faith vvhich he denyes not to be for substantiall fundamentall poynts true faith for he holds that true faith of some poynts may stand with damnable errours in other sayth I desire to know what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall vvhich demand vvere very impertinent if he did belieue that diuine supernaturall Grace vvere necessary for euery act of true Christian faith For if it be not supernaturall in essence how can the speciall motion and grace of God be necessarily required to it in all occasions though no particular temptatation or difficulty offer it selfe And he speakes very inconsequently in asking how vve know that our faith is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall since it is cleare that if the cause be necessarily and vniuersally supernaturall the effect also must be such and therfore he is convinced to belieue indeed that neither the cause nor essence of faith is supernaturall I grant that Pa. 409. lin 3. ante finem he vvould perswade vs that he hath no cause to differ from Dr. Potter concerning the supernaturality of Faith which sayth he I know and belieue as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reueald it not vnto vs but our Father which is in Heauen But euen in this we can gather only that he admits the necessity of some grace consisting in externall Reuelation or Proposition of the objects or mysteryes of Christian faith vvhich Pelagius did admit but not the necessity of internall Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost for enabling our vnderstanding to belieue supernaturall Objects vvith an infallible diuine Faith yea it is euident that he requires no such internall grace seing he expresly requires no stronger assent by faith then evidently followes from probable Arguments of credibility that is only a probable beliefe or perswasion vvheras if beside the proposition of the object he did require a supernaturall motion of grace eleuating our vnderstaÌ„ding aboue its naturall forces and measure of humane discourse it vvere very inconsequent to limit the assent of faith to the probability of jnducements or ArgumeÌ„ts of Credibility And yet he restraines our assent to such probability expresly because in rationall and naturall discourse the conclusion cannot exceede the premisses and therfor must be only probable vvhen the Premisses are such XVII For which cause when he speakes of particular Grace given to some aboue the ordinary course he confesses that it gives them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence as he expresly delivers pag. 37. n. 9. Which certainty in good consequence he could not denie to every Act of divine faith if he did believe that every such Act doth of it selfe necessarily require particular internall Grace of God aboue the forces of nature and beside the externall proposition of the objects or Mysteries of Christian belief Neither can it be denyed but that an Object of it selfe supernaturall may be belieued by the naturall forces of our Understanding with some probable naturall assent for Arguments euidently proposed as Miracles comparing of Historyes and the lïke reasons for which men belieue other matters of tradition since therfor he teacheth that
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
all Now your Objection tends only to proue that a probable faith may be sufficient to sway our will to obedience in respect of other Precepts concerning Workes or Manners all which though we did grant yet such a faith could not be sufficient to salvation which cannot be obtayned without performance of the Precepts both of living well and believing aright 105. Thirdly that a probable belief is not such a faith as we are commanded to haue I haue proved already and it is cleare enough of it self if it be remembred that we are obliged to belieue the Articles of Christian Faith by an Assent immoveable notwithstanding whatsoever temptations impulsions or reasons to the contrary which cannot possibly agree to a probable assent For nothing but Certainty can produce an immobility in the vnderstanding and a prudent settled resolution never to alter for what reason soever and to say the contrary is to turne meere probability into absolute certainty What is more vulgarly knowne than that Probability is essentially the roote of feare least the contrary may be true and involves an aptitude to be changed if better reason present it selfe We may well compare Probability in the vnderstanding with Passions in the Appetite which are a source of prepetuall motion Actiue and Passiue to moue and to be moved Or it is like the humours in our body which destroy it and themselves For Probability by the feare it hath adjoyned is still in actu primo in a disposition and readness to destroy it selfe And we may say Qui sibi nequam est cui bonus erit He that is wicked to himselfe to what other man will he be good If Probability cannot conserue it selfe being left to it selfe how will it encounter with accidentall temptations arising from the Divell World Flesh Passions feares Hope Loue Aversion Obstinacy Animosity Pusillanimity Education and the like If you were to giue a reason of your so many changes in Religion you must referr it to the nature of Probability which in reason must yield to better reason and so Preface N. 5. you profess that your constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heaven which for the present seemed most probable And Pag 303. you say of yourself that of a moderate Protestant you turned Papist and the day that you did so you were convicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion was an errour That afterward vpon better consideration you became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirmed Protestant you might with truth have acknowledged more alterations in Religion than heer you specify as that you passed the second tyme from Protestancy to vs and how then were you a confirmed Protestant And in the same N. 103. Pag 304. That you do not yield your weakness altogeather without apology seeing your deductions were rationall Behold the ground of your alterations Rationall and probable deductions which ground will remayne without end till one be settled by certainty A fearfull state wherin one may yea ought at the houre of death to chang his Religion if seeming better reasons do then present themselves against than he hath for it wherby he may come to dy of no Religion at all Socinians are wont to talk much of Reason of considering and discoursing men But alas what else is Reason or consideration or Discourse destitute of submission to God by an infallible Assent except a perpetuall and incessant offer or a temptation to alter their faith and pull downe their former Religion before they haue tyme to build or resolue of a new one Besides Christian Faith being obscure and evidence the naturall center of our vnderstanding without which it is like a stone violently held from falling no wonder if the strength of Certainty be necessary to beare vs vp aboue the inclination we haue to be placed in the center and light of Evidence wherby it falls out that humane reasons against Faith being connaturall and as it were levell with our vnderstanding are easily and eagerly accepted especially since the Mysteryes of Christian Faith seeme contrary to Reason because indeed they are aboue it 106. Morover if we reflect on the Essicient Cause of your probable faith which I haue proved to be only strength of nature how weake and changeable must it be If Holy Iob could say of Man nunquam in eodem statu permanet he neuer remaynes in the same state Iob 14. V. 2. much more may we say the same of the weakest belief in the soule of man which is meere probability produced by the only forces of him who never remaines in the same state Lamentable experience hath taught vs how many of great witts yea of zeale and piety who stood as Cedars of Libanus and shined like beacons to enlighten others haue fallen into damnable and somtymes even foolish Heresyes though once they believed the contrary Truths and Articles of our Faith with absolute certainty Such is the imbecillity of nature And then what can be expected of a belief which expresly tells it self that it is not certaine and which believes no poynt of faith with certainty except that Faith it self is not certaine Holy Scripture assures vs that he who loves danger shall perish therin Eccli 3. V. 27. It is in every mans power by Divine assistance to arrive to a certaine true belief as I shewed even out of Chillingworth himself and this he is obliged to doe by the immediate Precept of Faith and by the obligation of Charity to ones self which bindes vs to choose the safer part in a matter of so great moment and therfor let no man please himself in a probable Faith and put himself not only in danger but in certainty of perishing by such a weake probable and changeable Assent 107. And now I hope it appeares that the Reason which Chari Maintayned gaue for the infallibility of Christian Faith remaines very good and solide though delivered by him incidently not imagining that any would call in question the certainty of Christian Faith against D. Potter who expressly avouches it and against all Protestants As well might it haue beene expected of Char Maintayned to proue the Mistery of the most Blessed Trinity of the incarnation of the second Divine Person his Death Resurrection and Ascension the eternall reward of Saints in Heaven and punishment of sinners in Hell or any other Article of Christian belief common to Catholiques and Protestants as this truth that Christian Faith is certainly true The truth is that I hill doth so farr dissent from Protestants that I cannot be thought to write against him or to confute any defense he makes for Potter but to handle a new subject and argument against new Heresies which Potter and other Protestants will profess to detest and it were no wonder arguments should chance not to hitt that mark at which they never aymed nor confute those against whom they were never intended Yet in fact this argument which heer you impugne doth rightly proue the
because we cannot in this life hope to triumph over all sinne as Potter speakes so neither can her Communion be forsaken for Errours not Fundamentall seing the Doctor saith also that the Church may not hope to triumph over all Errours 8. Another Argument Charity Maintayned N. 25. tooke from these words of Potter Pag 75. There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and Practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke what he saith There can be no cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teaches that the Church of Christ the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall therfore errours in Poynts not Fundamentall cannot be judged a sufficient and just cause to depart from the vniversall Church and for the same reason if the errours of the Roman Church be supposed to be not Fundamentall there can be no just cause to depart from Her But here he expressly speakes vpon supposition that the Roman Church wanted nothing necessary to salvation and consequently that she did not erre in Fundamentall Points therfore there could be no cause to forsake Her And that Potter affirmes absolutly in other passages of his Booke that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Articles shall be demonstrated herafter and consequently that he contradicts himself in saying the vniversall Church cannot be forsaken and yet that there might be just and necessary cause to forsake the Church of Rome which erres only in Poynts not Fundamentall as he holds the vniversall Church may erre to say nothing for the present That Luther did forsake all Churches which is to forsake the vniversall Church as also that indeed all Ortodox Churches agreed with the Roman and so to forsake her was to forsake all Churches for which there can be no just cause 9. Another evasion Potter Pag 76. bring to avoyd the just imputation of Schisme and it is because they acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 10. This shift is confuted at large by Charity Maintayned as a strange Doctrine that men should be Schismatiks in for saking a Church which they judge to want somthing that is necessary to salvation and that they should be excused from Schisme who forsake her and yet profess that she hath all things necessary to salvation as if a man should thinke it a sufficient excuse for his rebellion to alledg that he held the Person against whom he rebelled to be his Lawfull Soveraine And Dr. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme because he forsooke the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be a true Church and to haue all necessary meanes to salvation But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholikes in mynd what an vnspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaryes are forced to confesse that they cannot cleare themselves from Schisme otherwise thaÌ„ by acknowledging that they do not nor caÌ„not cutt off froÌ„ the hope of salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say They must be damned vnless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your Zealous Brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere yourself from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all Points of Faith as you must profess yourself to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne yourselfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your owne definition of Schisme you cannot cleere yourselfe from that crime vnlesse you be content to acknowledg a manifest contradiction in your owne Assertions For if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of salvation how come you to say Pag. 20. that you Judg a reconcilation with vs to be damnable And Pag 75. that to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary cause And Pag 79. That they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discover their errour and neglect to vse them we dare not flatter them with so easy a censure of hope of salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the Hope of salvation the Church from which it separates how will you cleare yourself from Schisme who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure And who affirme that a reconciliation with vs is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficultyes which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme clearly that we may be saved least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirme that our Church erred in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation you know not how nor where nor among what Company of men to find a perpetuall Visible Church of Christ before Luther And therfore your best shift is to say and vnsay as your occasions command I do not examine the Doctours Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut of from the Body of Christ the Church from which it separates wherin he is mistaken as appeares by his owne example of the Donatists who were formall and proper Heretiks as he affirmes because they denyed the perpetuity of Gods Church which he saith is in its nature a formall Heresy against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and not Schismatiks as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists and Luciferians whom he also alâ—edges had bene meere Schismatiks yet it were against all good Logicke from a particular to inferr a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme Thus farr Charity Maintayned And indeed this might seeme a good Argument The Church of Rome wants something necessary to salvation Therfore it is lawfull and necessary to forsake Her but not this We haue forsaken the Church of Rome but yet so as we belieue she wants nothing necessary to salvation Therfore we are not Schismatiques 11. A third devise Potter hath to cleere Protestants from Schisme saying Pag 75. There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of ourselves But this saith Charity Maintayned N. 29. is a subtility by which all Schisme and sin
destructiue of salvation being but matters of small consideration in their account Secondly That they can not be excused from Schisme who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall and of so small moment in which they disagree amongst themselves and in diverse of which many of them agree with vs against their pretended Brethren which is to be well observed Thirdly that Chillingwâ— had no reason Pag 11 to say to Charity Maintayned produce any one Protestant that ever did so that is affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation and I will giue you leaue to say It is the only thing in Question seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants that for which he sayth no one can be produced yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself that Errours in not Fundamentalls are not destructiue of salvation nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of a Church Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction N. 39. Though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Errour destructiue of salvation or in itselfe damnable For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it Here I obserue first If the doctrine of Protestanss whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall be free from all errour destructue of salvation or in itselfe damnable it followes that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation nor in themselves damnable which is the thing I intended to proue 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants that they are not destructiue of salvation he must also say of our pretended errours both because commonly of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs as also because as I sayd diverse of them stand directly with vs against the common course of the rest and finally because the reason of being or not being damnable is common to all Points not Fundamentall which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded which to doe if it be destructiue of salvation must be so for all such Points if not in none at all 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it you must say seing Luther and his followers did and do disturbe the peace and renounce the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall otherwise it had beene no Church they did and do that for which there was no necessity and for which they had no warrant and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme For the same reason also that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall you must grant that whosoever believes as the Church did and lives accordingly vndoubtedly shall be saved For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points and in particular in her 39. Articles which was her constant doctrine if she had any constant at all In particular your conscience tells you that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and much less that our Saviour Christ was true God and consubstantiall with his Father to say nothing of other Points of those 39. articles And is it not ridiculous to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours But you wrote for Ends If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them amongst whom salvation was so certaine and remember your words Pag 272. N. 53. it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient To which proposition if we subsume but it cannot be necessary to separate for avoyding that errour or attaining that Truth which to avoyde or attaine is not necessary to salvation therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly was guilty of the sin of Schisme 4. But yet you will still be making good that in these matters Protestants and yourself in particular haue no constancy but say and vnsay as may best serue their turne You tell vs the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable which agrees not with what you say of Protestants Pag 19. If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise in a matter of such consequence our Errours begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offenses against God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt And Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in the Communion of Protestants notwithstanding their Errours the justification hereof is not so much that their Errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errours among the conditions of their Communion And Pag 279. N. 64. The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe But why do I cite particular passages You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours Pag 158. N. 52. in these words If the cause of it an errour be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its owne nature damnable as if by negligence in seeking the Truth by vnwillingnes to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens â—ll opinion or any other worldly feare or
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
without Confesion Here you declare that perfect sorrow or Contrition is not a sufficient disposition for remission of sins even at the houre of death A doctrine fit only to make poore sinners despaite Against this Hypocryticall and desperate doctrine of yours I bring these reasons 5. First Wheras you require for remission of sins not only Sorrow and Detestation of offences past with a firme Purpose of amendment for tyme to come but also the Object of such an Act or Purpose that is Actuall amendment which you say being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant this Doctrine seemes to be contradicted by your selfe Pag 133. N. 12. In these words For those that haue meanes to find the truth and will not vse them they Protestants conceave though their case be dangerous yet if they dy with a generall Repentance for all their sins known and vnknowne their salvation is not desperate You seeme either to speake of men brought to the houre of death or at least you do not exclude such a case and of men in state of sin proceeding from negligence to find the truth which negligence must be caused by some deadly sinfull Feare Hope or some other vicious humane respect and consequently must haue produced some vicious Habits and yet you seeme to say such men may be saved by a generall Repentance which being only generall cannot descend to all particulars as the mortification of all particular ill Habits must doe yea you suppose that the particular sinfull errours are not known to them and much less can those vicious Habits from which they proceed be mortifyed which cannot be done at that exigent of imminent death And therfore either the doctrine which you seeme to teach that it is possible for such men to be saved at the houre of their death is false or els you must grant that Repentance requires not the mortification of all vicious Habits 6. Secondly As I sayd of your Doctrine concerning the fallibility of Christian Faith and of your Doctrine of Attrition that they could serue only to bring men to damnation so I say of this your Assertion that no sinner who vnderstands and believes it to be true can avoide desperation at the houre of death when he sees that the extirpation of all vicious Habits is impossible and yet Necessary to true Repentance and salvation of his soule Protestants are wont to receiue the Communion at the houre of their death which I suppose you will say ought not to be done without true Repentance of their sins vnless you will suppose all Protestants at the houre of their death to be free from sin which is against that which Protestants themselves suppose as shall instantly appeare and yet it is impossible for them at that tyme to attaine your Repentance by extirpation of all vicious Habits In your Booke of Common-prayer in the Order of visiting the sicke it is sayd Here shall the sicke person make a speciall confession if he feele his conscience troubled with any â—eighty matter Therfore as I sayd Protestants may haue some weighty matter at the houre of their death And then is set downe the forme of Absolution which the Ptiest or Minister is to giue But how can he who feeles his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter truly repent at that last houre by your kind of Repentance which you say is a worke of difficulty and tyme Or how can he be absolved without true Repentance 7. Thirdly This Assertion is contrary to two doctrines very common and as I may say capitall amongst Protestants that Faith only justifyes and that it is impossible to keepe the commandements For that Act of Faith which they call justifying and remissiue of sin is exercised in an instant and would saue a man though he should dy before it were in his power to extirpate all vicious Habits And if it be impossible to keepe all the commandements it is impossible not to committ some sinfull Acts wherby they are broken and which must necessarily leaue after them some vicious Habits and so insteed of extirpating all vicious Habits men must still be producing new ones How then can you say Pag 40â— N. 31. Repentance is an essectuall conversion from all sin to all holynes Is not the breaking of Gods commandements a sin Or can he be converted from all sin to all holyness and to vniversall Obedience as you speake who cannot avoide sin but must still be disobeying 8. Fourthly In your doctrine what shall become of such as being newly converted to the Faith of Christ from Paganisme Judaisme or Turcisme are baptized at the houre of death and yet were full of vicious Habits which they haue no tyme to Mortify or roote out Or will you deny true Repentance and Remission of sin to those who after a life ledd in many grievous sins and after the Production of many ill Habits being suddenly converted to Christian Faith were baptized in their bloud before they could destroy so many vicious Habits 9. Fiftly If you duly consider what you say you will find your manner of Repentance to be impossible not only in the cases which I haue mentioned but to those also who liue a considerable tyme after forrow for their sinnes be it Attrition or Contrition For the Habits of vice as they were produced by frequency of acts so are they not taken away but by multiplication of contrary acts Neither do they consist in indivisibli so as if one degree be destroyed there may not remayne divers others which must be rooted out by little and little and yet while one habit is diminished or destroyed another may remaine entire and even be encreased for example while the habit of injustice is destroyed or diminished the habit of intemperance or impatience or timidity may remaine as they were vntouched or else growe to be more intense by acts of those vices Nay who doth so perfectly and totally vpon the very first onset relinquish any one vice that he is not morally speaking subject to be committing some one act or other of that former vice wherby the Habit will returne to receiue some increase And then how large a space of tyme may chance to slip away before the Habit of one and much more of all vices be perfectly rooted out Especially if it be deeply radicated and seconded and abbetted or rather prevented by some inclination arising from complexion temptation of the divell bad examples false principles of the world and other such causes which make the committing of sin obvious and easy wheras the contrary acts of vertue not only find great resistance for the reasons now mentioned but also because they are of themselves of a sublime nature and require great purity of intention without mixture of profit or pleasure or tincture of selfeloue which vniversall conjuncture and perfect harmony of all good circumstances is so necessary that the want of any one be it never so small depraves the whole
sorrow which being once duly perfomed and accepted if any reall entity or habit chance to remaine it is devested of all formall relation to any Act as it was injurious and offensiue seing that Act is retracted and revoked and therfore remaines no more voluntary in the offending person as if we suppose one to haue shot an arrow or cast a dart with purpose to kill another and to be instantly by particular motion of the Holy Ghost strooken with effectuall sorrow and Repentance before the shaft arriue to the party against which it was levelled the wounding or killing in that case will indeed be sayd to proceed from the hand which discharged the dart in nature of a reall naturall effect but not in the nature of a voluntary morall sinfull action since all that which was voluntary and sinfull is supposed to haue beene retracted by true repentance before the effect was produced This which we haue declared by the example of one man compared to another that the Habituall offense or injury consists not in any reall Habit or Quality but in a morall consideration holds much more if we transferr it to the Habituall offense of man against God who though de facto he be pleased to forgiue sin vpon our Repentance yet considering the thing in itselfe he could not be obliged to forgiue our sin though our sorrow were never so perfect and though we were assisted to extirpate all vicious Habits by the contrary naturall Habits of vertue but besides all this and all that can be imagined to be done by vs there is required a mercifull and free condonation from his infinite Goodness whether by infusing Grace or otherwise I do not dispute for the present without which our sinns are not forgiven wherby it clearly appeares that the denomination of being an Habituall sinner or to be in state of sin consists not in any reall Quality or Habit since these may be destroyed and yet habituall sin remaine and these may remayne though habituall sin be taken away as likewise if we suppose Almighty God to hinder miraculously the production of any reall habits or Qualityes by not affoardingh his vniversall free concurrence or cooparation without which no second cause can produce any action or reall habits yet whosoever commits a sinfull action vnavoidably is and is denominated a sinner till he repent Therfore it is manifest that habituall sin or sin remayning Habitually consists not in any reall phisicall habit or quality and consequently habituall sin may remayne though the vicious habit either be destroyed or never exist Which shewes that your Repentance by rooting out all vicious habits is impertinent to true Repentance and forgiveness of sins 12. The second kind of habits which belong to our present purpose are reall physicall and naturall Qualityes or habits of vertue orvice produced by vertuous or vicious Acts which acts being immediatly voluntary and produced by our free-will are in themselves good or bad vicious or vertuous deserving prayse or disprayse reward or punishment But good or bad habits are not voluntary in themselves but only in their causes for as much as they were produced by voluntary free Acts which produce habits no less necessarily than fire produces heat in a matter capable and approximated nor is it in the power of man to exercise Acts good or bad and forbid or hinder them from producing vertuous or vicious habits When therfore a sinfull Act is once effectually retracted by true Repentance the habit which proceeded from it and was voluntary only in its cause or sinfull Action remaines now no more voluntary to that repentant sinner but retaines meerly its as I may say innocent reall nature and entity being in itselfe a dead Quality and no more a sin to such a one than sickness or death was to Adam after his fall and repentance that is effects of sin not sin They may perhaps facilitate and incline to Acts which may proue sinfull yet that facilitation and provocation being not voluntary but purely naturall is of itselfe no sin at all As the naturall inclination which men haue to certaine Objects may be occasion of sinfull Acts if the will giue free consent yet is not of itselfe any sin nor voluntary vnto vs but naturall and may be occasion of great merit if bad motions proceeding from it be resisted by our will assisted by Gods Grace And you might as well say that Repentance requires the destruction of our nature I meane that naturall inclination which Divines call Fomes Peccati from which sinfull Acts may proceed and which in Adam proceeded from his actuall sin which deprived him of Originall Justice as you require the abolition of all Habits inclining to sin and produced by sinfull Acts which being retracted by Repentance the Habits or effects of them can retaine no relish or relation to them as they were voluntary free and sinfull For which cause such Habits haue now nothing to doe with any sin either actuall or habituall and therfore it is impossible that they can haue any least repugnance with justifying grace Sanctity Charity and Loue of God and consequently true Repentance cannot require their destruction seing their existence is compatible with grace and Sanctity Besides if the Acts by which one vitious Habit is destroyed doe not of themselves destroy any degree of some other vicious Habits with which those Acts haue no connexion much less can justifying grace be incompatible with any naturall acquired Habits of vice these being of an inferiour nature and order to that and therfore habituall sin with which grace and Sanctity cannot stand consists not in such naturall acquired ill habits neither can the extirpation of them be necessary to true Repentance which may take away the sin though those habits remaine Morover the acts wherby some vicious habit is acquired may destroy some contrary vicious habit as for example Acts of Prodigality tend to the destruction of the habit of Avarice and the same may be sayd of all other vices which are Extremes in order to the meane of vertue But it is absurd and impious to say or imagine that habituall sin can be forgiven by any sinfull Act since no habituall sin can be taken away without Repentance which being a speciall supernaturall Gift of God cannot be a sin Therfore we must affirme that reall Qualityes which we call habits are not habituall sin otherwise sin might be pardoned by sin Which is further confirmed by considering that vicious habits may be expelled immediatly and formally by naturall habits and mediate by Acts wherby the habits of such vertues are produced For example The habit of Injustice by the Contrary habit of Justice and so other vices by their contrary vertues habits and Acts. And therfore if habituall sin consist in reall Qualityes or habits of vice sin shall be forgiven formally by a forme or Quality or habit acquired by Acts produced by force of nature which being but naturall yet shall be vltima dispositio
different natures yea there should be as many formall differences of Faith as there are different Points which men belieue according to different capacities or instruction c And therfore we must say that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall but vpon Gods Revelation equally or vnequally proposed And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things equally revealed by God it is evident that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently loose all Faith and vnity therein In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith which is taken from the Formall Object and which to oppose is the proper cause of damnation for erring persons in all Objects whether they be great or small like or vnlike of themselves 21 Now in this discourse what false Propositions what confusion can you finde You say Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits and therfore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit bespecall from the Act and Object inspeciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 22. Answer To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits seing the Discourse of Cha Ma concerned only the Act of Faith whereby we belieue some Truths because they are revealed by God and vpon this ground he proved that every contrary Act is damnable and a grievous sinne which cannot be verifyed of Habits which of themselves are not sinnes Now who can deny that an Act of Faith takes its nature Essence and specification as Philosophers speak from the Divine Revelation And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts is taken from their Act and their Object as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr Potter Pag 139. saith expressly The formall Object or reason of Faith the chiefe Motiue mark motiue the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves is only divine Revelation Obserue that Divine Revelation only is the first and last into which Faith resolves without mentioning that it is taken from the Act yea excluding it by the word only only Divine Revelation And Pag 143. he saieth The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or perswasion or at the most acquired humane beleef Which words not only declare the Essence of Divine Faith but also express how by that Essence it is distinguished from other things and in particular from humane Faith perswasion and opinion as Cha Ma saied the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence therof Thus you see that Cha Ma spoke truth in affirming that the Nature and Being of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense and to this purpose 23. What doe you meane in saying If the habit be generall the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall If the Habit be speciall from the Act and Obiect in speciall I am very sure that every Habit and Act exists in particular though their Obiects be never so generall and so the Acts to which Habits incline are particular Acts producible by those Habits and nothing taken only in generall can be producible 24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied that our motiue to belieue is the Divine Revelation and which is more you affirme the same heere That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him And yet you strangely object That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 25. Answer First The motiue or Formall Object of which we speak is not an efficient cause in respect of the Habit or Act of Faith but if you will reduce it to one of the foure kinds of Causes which are commonly assigned some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca and perhaps others will say that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause because Aristotle defines the efficient cause to be Principium motus and you confound motum and motivum or motion and motiue Secondly Though a motiue were an efficient Cause your Argument That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect is of no moment For no man ever dreamed that the motiue or formall Object of Faith is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico but that the act takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object and essentially is or includes a Referēce to it as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things and consequently as you say extrinsecall to them For this cause C Ma saied not that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes Which words signify a difference not an identity seing a thing is not saied to take from itself but to be its owne Essence Do not yourselfe say that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object And yet I suppose you will not grant that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits as intrinsecall to them Especially seing naturall Habits are essiciently produced by Acts and Acts by Habits even supernaturall Acts as by their efficient causes And therfore according to your words are always extrinsecall to the effect And so you answer and confute your owne selfe 26. You doubt what Cha ma did meane by these words Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects But his meaning is cleare that Gods Revelation is the same whether it be applyed to Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and can no more be disbelieved in one kind of these Objects than in another it being no lesse impossible that the Supreme Verity and Veracity can testify a falshood in
except only by similitude analogy reduction or some such way For example we find not expressed in the Decalogue either divers sinnes as Gluttony Drunkennesse Pride Sloth Covetousnes in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greedines or divers of our chiefe obligations as obedience to princes and all superiours not only Ecclesiasticall but also Civill And the many Treatises of Civilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that divers sinnes against the light of Reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandements although when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull they may be reduced to some of the commandements and yet not so evidently and particularly but that divers doe it in divers manners Thus farr Charity Maintayned Of all this you thought sit to take no notice but only cavill at his words That Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstractes are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science or subject to which they belong against which you reply Yes if they be intended for perfect Summaries they must not omitt any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries Answer the Creed is a perfect summarie of those Truths which the Apostles intended to deliver therin Now for you to suppose that their purpose was to expresse all necessary points of Faith is to begg the Question in stead of answering the Argument of Charity Maintayned about the Decalogue of commandements though still I grant that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith in that sense which I explicated in my Observations 16. All that you haue N. 32.33.34.35.36.37.38 makes nothing against the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but confirmes it because you confesse that defacto there are many points necessary to be believed which belong not immediatly to practice from whence it followes evidently that Protestants doe but cosen poore people in alledging the Creed to that purpose for which they make vse or it as I sayd And besides seeing the particular points which Charity Maintaymed specifies N. 14. are either necessary to be believed by every particular person or at least by the whole Church which cannot erre in such points we must say the Creed doth not containe all necessary Articles of beliefe Morover you cannot be sure but that of those many important points which Charity Maintayned shewes not to be contained in the Creed some are fundamentall seing you confesse that you cannot tell which points in particular be fundamentall and so for ought you know they are fundamentall I obserue that you make mention of other particular points touched by Charity Mairtayned but omit that of Originall sinne because you doe not belieue it and yet Charity Maintayned N. 9. told you that S. Austine de Pec. Orig. Cont. Pelag. L. 2 Chap. 22. teacheth that it belongs to the foundation of Faith Lastly and Chiefly since the Creed alone without the Tradition and declaration of the Church cannot giue vs the true sense of itselfe and that in every one of its Articles are implied divers points not expressed which were afterwards declared by Generall Councels and which all are obliged to belieue it followes that even for those articles which you call credenda the Creed is not sufficient of itselfe To say nothing that for the maine point Dr. Potter and you yield vs as much as we desire to wit that the Creed containes not all Fundamentall points of Faith as Faith directs our manners and practice and so whatsoever you say of points meerely speculatiue imports little for the maine Substance of clearing Protestants from falshood and impertinency in alledging the Creed as they are wont to doe as if all were done which is required to Christians for matter of their vnderstanding and beliefe if they giue assent to the Creed though they differ in other articles of Faith which direct our lives 17. In your N 35. and 36. you make a florish about the Doctrine of Merit which is not a subject to be handled in this place wherof every one may find excellent Treatises in many Catholik Writers Only I say 1. That it is certaine Protestants haue alwayes supposed that they differ from vs in this point and therfor that our disagreement is in that Fundamentall point that God is a Remunerator as S. Paul saith and to this end only Charity Maintayned mentioned this point of Merit not to impugne the doctrine of Protestants in this place and therfor your discourse of this matter is plainly impertinent 2. That you doe not or at least will not vnderstand rightly our Catholik Doctrine about Merit which requires both habituall grace and particular motion of the Holy Ghost who therfor rewards his owne Gifts and you wrong vs in saying we make God a rewarder only and not a giver For this cause we acknowledge our workes of themselves or of their owne nature to haue no proportion with Grace and Glory and that by duty we are obliged to serue God as farr as he commands vs which hinders not but that by his Grace this very serving him may be meritorious a duty and yet a deserving as the servant merits a reward for the workes which he is obliged to doe which is much more evident seing de facto God hath not commanded all that he might haue exacted of vs in rigour 3. As else where so here you take vpon you to declare the doctrine of Protestants about merit without any commission from them who are so divived among themselves that it is impossible for you to speake as you thinke in behalfe of them all without putting yourselfe to maintaine contradictions For how can they pretend to any Merit or Obedience who teach that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements that all our workes are deadly sinnes that we haue no free will and the like 4. That you bring the very same arguments against the merit of Just men which your friend Uolkelius de Uer. Relig. Lib. 5. Chap 20. vrges against the Merit of our Blessed Saviour and therfore English Protestants who against you Socinians belieue that Christ merited and satisfied for mankind must answer your objections against vs. 18. To your N. 39. I say whosoever considers the words of Potter Pag 255. will confesse that he both approves and applauds the words of Dr. Vsher cited by you to which words I neede only answer that it is impossible that they who agree in points receyvea in the whole Christian world and yet disagree in any point of Faith be it never so small can with such a beliefe joyne holy obedience seing it is a deadly sinne and disobedience and as you confesse damnable in it selfe to hold any errour against whatsoever revealed Truth And so your discourse in the beginning of your next N. 40. falls to the ground it being impossible that agreement in Fundamentall points only can joyne men in one communion of Faith while they so differ in other matters as one side must be in a damnable
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all