make vs evidently see what we belieue yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God and therfor say I with an Assent more certaine than can proceed from humane Authority or meere Arguments of Credibility 3. Divers great Philosophers hold that Accidents are not only dispositions to the substantiall Forme but reall causes therof immediatly producing it as they are instruments of the Principall substantiall Agents and make vp as it were one totall Cause with them According to this Philosophy your instances make against your selfe and do confirme the Doctrine of some grave Diuines that if we consider the Arguments of Credibility not as they are mere inducements precedent and disposing to Faith only shewing the object therof but as they integrate the Formall object or Divine Revelation we must say that they are elevated and raised vp to be part of the object and immediately causes of the Assent of Faith not of their owne force or taken alone but joyned with and conveying to our vnderstanding the Divine Revelation wherby they grow to be the voyce and testimony or as it were reall letters of God speaking to men by them For which cause S. Paule Heb 2.4 affirmes miracles to be a certaine speach of God saying God withall witnessing by signes and wonders where Theodoretus sayth that God by miracles giues a testimony to preaching Miracles therfor are in some manner the very voyce of God Whence S. Austine Ep 49. Quaest 6. absolutely sayeth God speakes by wonderfull workes And Marc vlt it is God cooperating and by signes confirming what they spoke And Ioan 10. Christ our Lord sayd concerning his owne workes They give testimony of me Therfor say these Divines Arguments of Credibility may be raised above themselues And so your examples and instances make nothing against vs but do confute your selfe Which contradicting of your selfe as in many other occasions so heere also forces me to stay yet a little in observing a couple of your contraryetyes or contradictions 81. The one is in these words Pag 329. and 330. If you speake of an acquired rationall discursive faith these Reasons which make the object seeme credible must be the cause of it If you speake of a supernaturall infused faith then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes and then that which was sayd must be sayd againe c Do not these words distroy themselues Or what sense can they beare An acquired rationall discursive faith caused by Reasons which make the object credible and a supernaturall infused faith infused by the former meanes that is by the Reasons which make the object seeme credible If an acquired rationall discursive faith be caused by the Reasons which make the Object credible and a supernaturall infused faith be caused by the same meanes and Reasons how do you distinguish a faith so acquired from a faith in the same manner infused Or rather how can it be a supernaturall infused Faith if it be caused by the same meanes by which an acquired discursive faith is caused In a word how is the same faith acquired and supernaturally infused 82. Your other contradiction I fynd Pag 36. and 37. N. 9. And Pag 112. N. 154. in both which places you grant to some a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence and yet in the former places you say of such men that the spirit of obsignation or confirmation makes them know what they did but believe Now if they know that they did but believe how is their certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence seing you put such a knowledg as is more than Faith which implyes obscurity and consequently such a knowledg is indued with evidence and yourselfe Pag 325. N. 2. saie He that doth barely and meerly believe doth never know and that science and knowledg are synonymous termes Therfor you speak of an evident knowledg and then I say how comes their certainty of adhesion to be beyond their certainty of evidence Or how can you speake of a certainty of adhesion beyond the certainty of evidence Who Pag 330. N. 7. say That power which infuseth into the vnderstanding assent must also infuse Evidence into the object and looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object If at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object which is in the Assent how can the Assent be beyond the evidence of the object 83. To these your contradictions I add your saying Pag 37. N. 9. What God gives as a reward to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is an other and what he will accept of out of grace and favour is yet an other To those that believe and live according to their faith he gives by degrees the spirit of Obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe He requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be living and effectuall vnto true obedience In which words you distinguish three sorts of persons which yet according to your owne words must fall to be the same First of them who believe and live according to their faith 2. of those who performe what is required of them as their duty and 3. of them whose faith God will accept out of grace and favour For to believe and live according to their faith to have a faith effectuall to obedience and working by love is required of all as their duty such a faith I say is required and will be accepted by the law which God hath prescribed Matt 19. V. 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements and no less will be accepted out of Grace and Favour Otherwise it should be and not be required and so your triple distinction of persons destroyes it selfe and ends in one only sort 84. I would gladly go forward to your other Objections but first you must give me leave to confute and turne against your self a saying which hath too much of the insolent and injourious against true Christian Faith in these words Pag. 329. N. 7. Your Faith if you please to have it so let it be a free necessitated certaine vncertaine evident obscure prudent and folish naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall assent 85. All this groundless insulting I will retort against your self eveÌ„ out of your owne grounds aÌ„d joyntly will shew that it belongs nothing at all to our Faith First your Faith is free and necessitated Free if you will stand to your owne express words Pag 329. N. 7. that there is obedience in it which you say can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disâ—bâ—dience as there is not where
different natures yea there should be as many formall differences of Faith as there are different Points which men belieue according to different capacities or instruction c And therfore we must say that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall but vpon Gods Revelation equally or vnequally proposed And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things equally revealed by God it is evident that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently loose all Faith and vnity therein In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith which is taken from the Formall Object and which to oppose is the proper cause of damnation for erring persons in all Objects whether they be great or small like or vnlike of themselves 21 Now in this discourse what false Propositions what confusion can you finde You say Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits and therfore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit bespecall from the Act and Object inspeciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 22. Answer To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits seing the Discourse of Cha Ma concerned only the Act of Faith whereby we belieue some Truths because they are revealed by God and vpon this ground he proved that every contrary Act is damnable and a grievous sinne which cannot be verifyed of Habits which of themselves are not sinnes Now who can deny that an Act of Faith takes its nature Essence and specification as Philosophers speak from the Divine Revelation And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts is taken from their Act and their Object as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr Potter Pag 139. saith expressly The formall Object or reason of Faith the chiefe Motiue mark motiue the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves is only divine Revelation Obserue that Divine Revelation only is the first and last into which Faith resolves without mentioning that it is taken from the Act yea excluding it by the word only only Divine Revelation And Pag 143. he saieth The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or perswasion or at the most acquired humane beleef Which words not only declare the Essence of Divine Faith but also express how by that Essence it is distinguished from other things and in particular from humane Faith perswasion and opinion as Cha Ma saied the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence therof Thus you see that Cha Ma spoke truth in affirming that the Nature and Being of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense and to this purpose 23. What doe you meane in saying If the habit be generall the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall If the Habit be speciall from the Act and Obiect in speciall I am very sure that every Habit and Act exists in particular though their Obiects be never so generall and so the Acts to which Habits incline are particular Acts producible by those Habits and nothing taken only in generall can be producible 24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied that our motiue to belieue is the Divine Revelation and which is more you affirme the same heere That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him And yet you strangely object That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 25. Answer First The motiue or Formall Object of which we speak is not an efficient cause in respect of the Habit or Act of Faith but if you will reduce it to one of the foure kinds of Causes which are commonly assigned some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca and perhaps others will say that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause because Aristotle defines the efficient cause to be Principium motus and you confound motum and motivum or motion and motiue Secondly Though a motiue were an efficient Cause your Argument That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect is of no moment For no man ever dreamed that the motiue or formall Object of Faith is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico but that the act takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object and essentially is or includes a Referēce to it as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things and consequently as you say extrinsecall to them For this cause C Ma saied not that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes Which words signify a difference not an identity seing a thing is not saied to take from itself but to be its owne Essence Do not yourselfe say that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object And yet I suppose you will not grant that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits as intrinsecall to them Especially seing naturall Habits are essiciently produced by Acts and Acts by Habits even supernaturall Acts as by their efficient causes And therfore according to your words are always extrinsecall to the effect And so you answer and confute your owne selfe 26. You doubt what Cha ma did meane by these words Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects But his meaning is cleare that Gods Revelation is the same whether it be applyed to Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and can no more be disbelieved in one kind of these Objects than in another it being no lesse impossible that the Supreme Verity and Veracity can testify a falshood in
do you N. 81. say to Him of the same words Seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seemes to be vniversally infallible meaning to yourself Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion But of the intention and meaning of Charity Maintayned in alledging the saied Texts of Scripture for the infallibility of the Church we haue saied enough already 107. I wonder you are so vnjust as to say we proue the Church to be infallible because she is infallible seing our Doctrine is this That we first proue the Church to be infallible and then infer that whatsoever she teaches being true and that among other points she teaches one is her owne infallibility we may beleeue it even for her Authority as I shewed you must say the same of Scripture if once you belieue it to be the word of God CHAP XIII THAT THE CREED CONTAINES NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED IN ANSWER TO HIS FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. REpetition of the same thing will not I hope seeme either needless or fruiteless when it is necessary for some good purpose and effect I doe therfore intreate the Reader now as I haue done heretofore not to looke on the words and arguments of Cha Ma as they are cited and abbreviated and obscured and in a word disadvantaged to say no worse by Mr. Chillingworth but as they are delivered by the Author himself 2. Your first ten Numbers or Sections I omitt as contayning nothing which hath not bene answered already Only I wish you had declared what your vnderstand in your N. 2. by these words Every one of the fundamentall Rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God and therfore virtually includes an article of Faith For if those Rules be revealed they do not only virtually include an article of Faith but they are properly and formally objects and articles of Divine Faith If they be not revealed by God they are no more articles or objects of Faith than a thing not visible can be the object of our eyes or a thing without sound or not audible the object of our eares c. You say they come from God and therefore include virtually an Article of Faith If you meane they come from God as he is the efficient Cause of all things that is common to all Creatures and therefore not sufficient to include an article of Faith If they come from God as revealing and testifying them to be true they are formall Objects of Faith as I saied and do not only virtually include an Article of Faith But it may be feared that in these words there lurkes some hidden poyson as if the rules of good life and action as they are knowen by the light of naturall Reason and not as they are revealed and so become formall Objects of Faith were sufficient to direct our life for bringing vs to salvation and that no supernaturall knowledg were necessary No less obscure are your other words that Fundamentall Doctrines of Faith are such as though they haue influence vpon our lives as every essentiall Doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to belieue them and not to doe them For by these words how do you distinguish Credenda from agenda if both haue influence vpon our lives and in neither of them the act of our vnderstanding or assent is that which we doe but only it is the act which directs vs to doe other things and so hath influence vpon our lives But these things I omitt and come to 3. Your N. 11. wherin you say to C Ma Your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtile than sound a distinction without a difference There being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved Answer this last is very true For in that case there concurrs both the Affirmatiue precept of exercicing an explicite act of Faith and the Negatiue of not disbelieving any truth revealed by God But that which you ad nor no point to any man at any time in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed is manifestly vntrue For when it is proposed to ones vnderstanding that God hath revealed some Truth he may truly judge that there is no affirmatiue Precept which obliges him at that tyme to exercise any act of Faith about that partioular object and therfore may resolue to abstaine or forbeare to produce any such assent of Faith but think of something els and may haue reason to doe so v.g. if some act of an other vertue be more pressing at that tyme and yet he should sinne damnably if he did positively dissent And so at the same tyme it may be necessary not to disbelieue some Truth and yet not be necessary actually to belieue it It is disputed in the schooles whether the will can stay the vnderstanding from yealding assent to a conclusion deduced evidently from evident Premisses But no man can doubt whether the will may draw our vnderstanding from a positiue actuall assent to the Objects of Faith which are so obscure that they require a pious affection in the will which therfore may dissent ād are so difficult that for every act of faith we need the particular supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost and then what wonder is it that we may abstaine from doing that which is not in our sole power to performe and to which we are forced neither metaphysically as I haue shewed nor morally because we suppose there is no affirmatiue precept to exercise such an act of Faith in those circumstances It seemes you haue a mynd against all Divines to make no difference between the affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith wherof Cha. Ma. speakes Part 1. Chap 3. N. 2. and what he saieth may be applied to our present purpose and who will say That every one is alwayes obliged to be exercising a positiue act of Faith vpon all those objects which he can never disbelieue May not a man reading or hearing some part of Scripture only conceiue it per primam apprehensionem without affirming or denying as when one learnes without Booke or only considers the phrase or writes as at a copie and the like 4. You continue your discourse and say to Charity Maintayned Yet that which I belieue you would haue saied I acknowledg true that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely are yet necessary to be believed vpon a supposition that they are knowen to be revealed by God that is become then necessary to be believed when they are knowen to be Divine Revelations But Ch. Ma hath no reason to accept as a favour this explication of yours which containes false doctrine as if all truths became necessary to be believed by an explicite actuall belief when they are known to be divine Revelations
glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Galat. 5.22.23 The fruit of the spirit is Faith Ephes 1.16.17.18 I cease not to giue thankes for you making a memory of you in my prayers That God of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of glory giue you the spirit of wisdom and of reuelation in the knowledg of him the eyes of your hart illuminated that you may know what the hope is of his vocation and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints Ephes 2.8 For by Grace you are saued with Faith and that not of yourselves for it is the gist of God Ephes 6.23 Peace to the Brethren and charity with faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Philipp 1.29 To you it is giuen for Christ not only that you belieue in him but also that you suffer for him Colos 1.2 Giuing thanks to God the Father who hath made vs worthy vnto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light 2. Pet. 1.21 The holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost XX More Texts of Scripture might be alledged but it is needles since euē all Sectaryes except Pelagius and such as follow him belieue Grace to be necessary for faith and in particular D. Potter to whom Chilling is in this mayne poynt directly opposit as is euident by these his expresse words Pag. 135. Faith is sayd to be diuine and supernaturall in regard of the author or efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith which is the speciall grace of God preparing enabling and assisting the soule to belieue For faith is the gist of God alone 1. Cor. 12.34 2. In regard of the object or things belieued which are aboue Philipp 1.29 the reach and comprehēsion of meere nature and reason Philip. 1.29 Thus D. Potter and adds that of these two respects there is no controuersie he meanes betweene Catholiques and Protestāts For by the euēt it is cleare that there is a controuersy betweene him and the Socinians and in particular with Chilling worth his champion But necessity hath no law Charity Maintayned could not with any shew be answered in the grounds of Protestants who therfor chose rather to destroy their owne grounds and the doctrine of all good Christians then to confesse the truth of our Catholik faith though conuicted by euident reasons Besides Pag. 140. D. Potter sayth Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired faith but the assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine in which words he distinguisheth acquired faith from diuine and consequently holds that this is not acquired but infused Pag. 141. That Scripture is of diuine authority the belieuer sees by many internall arguments found in the letter it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of the Church without and of grace within Mark how besides the externall proposition of the object by the Church he requires internall grace Pag. 142. There is in the Scripture it selfe light sufficient which the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motiues which the Church vseth for enforcing of her instructions may discouer to be diuine descended from the father and fountain of light Pag. 143. he teaches that by the ministery of the church in preaching and expounding the Holy Ghost begets a diuine faith in vs. And in the same place he tearmeth the act of faith supernaturall as also we haue heard him tearme it so pag. 135. and it is a plaine contradiction that it should be supernaturall or aboue nature and yet be produced by the forces of nature which were to make it aboue and not aboue nature XXI By the way it is to be noted that D. Potter deliuers a very vntrue doctrine in saying in this pag. 135. that the efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith is the speciall grace of God For the speciall actuall grace of God is not the efficient cause of the habit of our faith which is infused by God alone as our naturall acts of vnderstanding or willing do not produce the Powers of our vnderstanding or will and supernaturall Habits of Faith Hope c. are giuen vs not to facilitate but to enable vs to exercise Acts of Faith Hope c For which cause they are compared to supernaturall Acts as the naturall faculties or Powers of our soule are compared to their naturall Acts which they produce and are not produced by them I omit his vnproper speach that the speciall grace of God is the author of an act of faith SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as vve ought for saluation XXII IF Grace be necessary for euery worke of Christian Pietie and in particular for faith as we haue proued it will be needles to stand long vpon prouing that it is necessary for hoping which is a work of Pietie proceeding from a Theologicall Vertue to which Faith is referrd and of which mortall men considering the sublimity of eternall Happynes and guiltynes of their owne meanes frailty and sinnes stand in need for raising vp their soules towards so supernaturall an Object and preseruing them from dejection pusilanimity and despaire yet we will not omit to alledge some particular Texts of Scripture in proofe of this Truth Rom 5.2 By whom Christ we haue access through Faith into this Grace wherin we stand and glorie in the hope of the glorie of the sonnes of God Where it is cleare that the Apostle placeth hope amongst the gifts of the children of God which we receaue by Christ Chap. 15. V. 4.5 That by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may haue hope and the God of patience giue you to be of one mynd Which words declare that God is the author of those gifts 1. Cor. 13.13 And now there remayne Faith Hope Charity Where it appeares that these three Vertues are specially numbred togeather as belonging to the same rank and order Psalm 18.49 Be myndefull of thy word to thy seruant wherin thou hast giuen me hope Thessa◠5.8 But we that are of the day are sober hauing on the brest plate of faith and charity and a helmet the hope of saluation Where wee see the apostle ioynes Hope with Faith and Charity and V. 9.10 declares that it is given for Christ and is ordaynd and conduces to a supernaturall end saying for God hath not appointed vs vnto wrath but vnto the purchasing of saluation by our Lord Iesus Christ who died for vs. 1. Pet. 3.4.5 Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his great mercie hath regenerated vs vnto a liuely hope by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead vnto an inheritance incorruptible and incontaminate and that cannot fade conserued in the heauens in you who in the vertue of God are kept by faith vnto saluation SECTION IV. Grace necessary for Charity XXIII IF Grace be necessary for faith and hope much more is it necessary for
it selfe he should not haue spoken so rawly as if one strong and another weaker premise had no greater influēce into the Conclusion than if both the premises were weake 33. But to omitt this he should haue declared whether a conclusion deduced from one certaine and another probable premise although precisely and formally and Reduplicatiue as it is a conclusion can beget only a probable assent yet I say whether such a conclusion taken materially and Specificatinè may not be sufficient to bring our vnderstanding to an infallible Act of Faith not by it selfe but by applying the Diuine Reuelation which growing by that meanes and application to be the immediate and formall Object of our vnderstanding may moue it to an Assent proportionable to such an Object and Authority that is absolutely certaine and infallible as he who applyes fire to a combustible subject is occasion that heat is produced by the fire immediately applyed and not by him who applyed it or as a Preacher or Pastour whose testimonyes are humane and fallible when they declare to their hearers or subjects that some Truth is witnessed by Gods word are occasion that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith depending immediately vpon Divine Reuelation applyed by the sayd meanes This if he had declared as he should haue done not to deceaue his Reader his mayne argument that the conclusion followes the weaker premise had bene answered and confuted by himselfe 34. And this same ground and consideration wholy euacuates the examples which he alledgeth pag. 36. N 8. That a man cannot goe or stand strongly if either of his leggs be weake That a building cannot be stable if any one of the necessary pillars therof be infirme and instable That if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the Reuelation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour For in our Case humane testimonyes are not the leggs on which Faith stands nor the pillars which vphold it nor the message or messenger for which we belieue but it is only the Diuine Reuelation on which the Act of Faith relyes and from which it receyueth perfection nature and essence and which alone is strong enough for that end 35. If you object that perhaps that humane authority is false and proposes to my vnderstanding Diuine Reuelation when God doth not reueale Therfor I cannot vpon humane testimony representing or applying Diuine Reuelation exercise an infallible Act of Faith I answer it is one thing whether by a reflex Act I am absolutly certaine that I exercise an infallible act of Faith and an other whether indeed and in actu exercito I produce such an Act. Of the former I haue sayd nothing neither makes it to our present purpose Of the latter I affirme that when indeed humane testimony is true and so applyes a diuine reuelation which really exists in such case I may belieue by a true infallible Assent of Christian Faith The reason of this seemes cleare because although a truth which I know only by a probable assent is not certaine to me yet in it selfe it is most immoueable and certaine in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that tyme in which it is and so it implyes contradiction that Diuine reuelation should not exist when by a true judgment I affirme it to exist which certaine existance once supposed it is able to tansfuse certainty and infallibility to that Act of which it alone and not any precedent thing is the Formall Object and Motiue Neither will God be wanting to concurre on the belieuers part with his speciall Grace necessary for producing a supernaturall Act of Christian Faith And so his argument ibidem that a riuer will not rise higher than the fountaine from whence it flowes turnes against himselfe and proues that our Assent flowing from Diuine and infallible causes Will rise as high as those fountaines to a supernaturall infallible Assent This is sufficient to shew how the probability of a Conclusion taken specificatiue doth not hinder but that by meanes therof I may come afterward to an infalliblity in my Assent deriued not immediately from that Conclusion but from the Diuine Reuelation Wherby his chiefest Ground is ouerthrowne That it is vniuersally impossible to exercise an infallible Act of Faith vnless the existence of Diuine Reuelation be certainly foreknowne in one of the Premises 36. But yet further if we consider all the other Causes of Christian Faith they do euince that it is certaine and infallible as I haue touched before For beside the object of infinite Authority on the belieuers part God doth infuse the Habit of Faith He giues a particular Actuall Motion of Grace for exercising the Act therof He effectually moues the will by a Pious assection and Command to determine the vnderstanding to a firme assent of Faith aboue the precedent Arguments of Credibility If a better vnderstāding conceiue the same Object with more perfection than another of lesse capacity what stint can we put to that vnderstāding which is directed and strengthned by rayes from the light quae illuminat omnem hominem Which enlightneth euery man 37. Alas how perniciously foolish will men needs be towards their owne perdition All things euē by the instinct ād strēgth of nature pass from an imperfect to a perfect state from the outward senses to the inward which cā correct the errours of our outward from which it tooke its first notions from them to the vnderstanding and finally by probable Arguments is prepard to finde out Demonstrations And yet men will not vnderstand how we may rise from arguments of Credibility to a certainty in Faith though assisted with Diuine Grace 38. To what hath beene sayd for the infalliblity of Faith I add this consideration If Faith require not absolute certainty it were sufficient to belieue that the authority of Scripture is only probable or that it is on ly probable that God cā neither deceyue nor be deceued For this were sufficient to ground a probable assent that Christian Faith is true Because according to his Principles that Faith is a Conclusion and that the Conclusion followes the fallible and weaker Premise what difference is there to belieue that Scripture is fallible or to affirme that we do but probably and fallibly belieue that it is infallible or the word of God in his Principles or what imports it for attaining certainty that Gods Reuelation is in it selfe infallible if I doe but fauibly know that he hath reuealed any thing And yet S. Paule Heb 6 groundes Christian Faith vpon this that it is impossible For God to lie Therfore he did suppose that Christian Faith is infallible 39. But what if 〈◊〉 himselfe pretend to belieue that Christian Faith is infallible I do not say he belieues it to be such yet he hath words which I propose to the Reader
Perhaps you have an erroncous imagination as if the obscurity of Faith ought to be compared with the evidence of science or Demonstration as a privation with the opposite forme as darknees with light or as ignorance or Errour with knowledg and so conceive it impossible that such obscurity can sland with certainty which must needs bring with it some intellectuall light Which imagination you seeme to discover Pag 325. N. 2. where you say That Science and knowledg properly taken are synonymâ—us tearmes and that a knowledg of a thing absolutely vnknowne is a plaine implicaÌ„cy I thâ—nke are things so plaine that you will not require any proofe of theÌ„ In which words you must suppose that the objects of faith are absolutely vnknowne as if Faith were a privation of all light or knowledg and yet with little consequence to your owne words Pag 25. N. 29. you say whether knowand Opinyon touching the same thing may stand togeather is made a Question in Schooles which according to you could be no question if opinion had no knowledg or light at all because the knowledg of a thing absolutely vnknowne is say you a plaine implicancy Which words as I sayd of Faith seeme to suppose that Opinion is a privation or negation of knowledg or evidence But in this you are much mistaken For the obscurity of Faith ought not to be compared with the light of science as a privation which the forme opposite to it But as a thing less perfect with an other more perfect or as a small light with a greater Every Act of our vnderstanding which is the eye of our soule must involve some light or clearness as every even imperfect sight of our corporall eye is endued with some evidence which in comparison of a more perfect sight or act of seeing may be tearmed obscure though in it selfe it hath both some clearness and an absolute certainty that it sees that object which it sees though dimly and as it were through a mist or in some darkish place As S. Peter Ep 2. C. 1.19 compares Faith to a candel shining in a dark place Which words do excellently express both the shining or light and also the obscurity of Faith Since then Faith is endued with some light or evidence no reason can be given why such a light may not be joyned with certainty by the most prudent command of the will which keepes our vnderstanding stedfast to the Object and the Grace of the Holy Ghost which elevates and enables it to an Act proportionable to the Divine Revelation and Testimony Nay rather abstracting from that which we fynd by vsuall and naturall course of thinges or experience which ought not to be put in ballance with Gods Omnipotency it is harder to give a reason why they may not stand togeather naturally than to imagine with any colour of reason that they are incompossible by a supernaturall assistance and grace of the holy Ghost And therfor Divines with the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas only say that our vnderstanding without evidence is like to a stone out of its center but not that it cannot possibly be made sure of any truth without it 78. But you say P. 330. N. 7. Whatsoever effect is wrought meerly by meanes must be are proportion to and cannot exceed the vertue of the meanes by which it is whrought as nothing by water can be made more cold than water nor by fire more hot than fire nor by honey more sweet than honey nor by gall more bitter than gall 79. The Answer to this Objection is very easy by granting all that you inferr if you meane that the Assent which we giue meerly for the Arguments of Credibility considered in themselues is no stronger than those Arguments can make it This we willingly grant but absolutely deny that Diuine Faith is measured by those Arguments and not by Diuine Reuelation and Gods supernaturall Grace And so your example of sire water honey and gall proue only that Christian Faith cannot be stronger than Gods Testimony and Grace which are the causes of Faith which no man denyes This Answer is easy and cleare but yet by way of supererogation I will add these considerations which will shew that your examples make against your selfe First A thing by water may be made more cold than water c if water or fire be eleuated by Diuine Power to worke above their owne naturall forces and produce in an other subject more intense cold or heate than they haue in themselues For as by miracle fire may be hindered from producing any heate or other naturall effect so it may be enabled to produce more perfect effects than it could haue done by its owne power Thus all your instances may be applyed against your selfe That as fire may be eleuated to effects aboue it selfe so our vnderstanding may be raised aboue the assent which it can receiue from the Arguments of Credibility by a pious and prudent command of the will and particular motion of the Holy Ghost 2. Although the heate of fire coldness of water c considered in themselues cannot make any thing more cold or hot than themselues yet if they be taken as propertyes of water or fire ordayned to make way to introduce the substance of fire and water in to other subjects they concurr as dispositions to the production of thinges more perfect than themselues that is the substantiall formes of water and sire in such sort as those formes cannot but follow those dispositions and in this sence a thing by heate may be made more hot than the heate it selfe in regard that such a heate necessarily introduceth fire which is the fountaine and eminently more hot than any particular heate proceeding from it Now in proportion to this your example I say that as such Accidents as are dispositions to a substantiall forme concurr to an effect more noble than themselves so Arguments of Credibility as they poynt at Diuine Revelation as S. Iohn shewed a greater Authority than his owne by bearing witness of our Saviour may dispose vs to an Assent of Christian Faith wherby they may truly be sayd to exceed themselves as they are meerly considered in themselves without further relation to a more noble Forme or Assent to which they prepare vs because they informing our vnderstanding that there is good reason and obligation to belieue some Truths as witnessed by God the will is obliged vnder payne of damnation effectually to move the vnderstanding to the belief of such Articles with an Assent proportionable to that supreme Authority which the vnderstanding not being able to doe by its owne forces and God commanding nothing impossible there cannot be wanting the necessary concurrence and speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost for producing an Act of Divine supernaturall infallible Faith 80. Your selfe say Pag 331. N. 9. There is abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to belieue the truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot
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
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation if they deny it to vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
other must be true Indeed Sir I know nor how to reconcile those two sayings of Charity Maintayned because I cannot see how possibly they could ever fall out or be at variance For what disagreement can be imagined in these Propositions Some errours are not Fundamentall as not being repugnant to Fundamentall truths and every Fundamentall errours must haue a contrary Fundamentall truth or rather haue they not a most cleare connexion and parity that as an errour not Fundamentall is opposite only to a truht not fundamentall so a fundamentall errour is opposite to a fundamentall Truth And the reason of this is given by Ch Ma in that very place which you cited because according to Philosophy the privation is measured by the forme to which it is repugnant 172. Thus vpon the whole matter it appeares That your affirming our falsely supposed errours to be damnable and so to yield sufficient cause of deserting our Church is turned against all Protestants who confessedly de facto maintayne damnable errours That although our errours were never so damnable in themselves yet they could not be so to vs who are excused by invincible ignorance That Potter and you contradict yourselves in talking of pardon for that which is no sin and That you overthrow your distinction of errours which you say are damnable but not Fundamentall while in the meane tyme you make all damnable errours to be fundamentall and which for that cause if you will speake with consequence must destroy the vnity of Faith and Church and hope of saluation And therfore seing you grant that there was a Church when Luther arose it followes that indeed she was not guilty of any errour even not Fundamentall and that Luther and his followers were formall Schismatiks in leaving her communion vpon a false and impossible supposition or pretence of errours 173. Object 16. Pag 260. N. 22. you speake thus to Charity Maintayned wheras you say That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church and from thence collect that there must be a knowne Church from which it is poâ—sible for men to deparâ— I might very justly question your Antecedent and dâ—sâ—â—e you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well aâ—d vision of the Church as from it A separation not of a Part from the Wâ—ole but of some Parts from the other And if you liked not this Definition I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome which of the Parts was the Church and which was divided from it And Pag 271. N. 51. You define Schisme A causeless separation of one Part of the Church from another 174. Answer I haue already sayd enough against this Definition of yours yet because you add an Objection about Schismes in the Church of Rome and because I shall haue also occasion to add somthing to what I sayd aboue I thinke best to answer this Objection here also though by the same occasion it will cost me the labour of repeating some of those things which I haue already delivered If then 175. You haue no certainty in favour of your new Definition but only say why not rather or at least as well c why are you not content with the old one And then why do you object thâ—t which your selfe must answer for the old one But there lyes a snake vnder this smooth grasse and covertly you reach poyson vnder colour of milke Socinians make small account of the Church and Her Authority and would haue such an equality as might giue freedome for every one to follow his one fancy and begin a new Church and when all is done to say They divided not from the Church but one part from another and they themselves being one Part may as well as the other be called the Church and the other be as truly sayd to be divided from them as they from the Church and in a word all must come to be Substantives and independents in matters of Faith and Religion Thus your definition comes to be well connected with your saying That Luther and his fellowes departed not from the Church because still they remained a part of it and they departed not from themselves Thus also you would avoide that vnanswerable Argument of Charity Maint Part 1. Chap 5. N. 35. That seing there was a Division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose and that that Church cannot be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him before whose tyme she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part we must say that he divided himselfe and went out of Her Which is to be a Schismatike or Heretique or both Thus you may taxe S. John 2. Jo 19. saying they went out from vs and aske why rather from vs that is from the Church than that they made a Division of the Church dividing one part from another But indeed your glosse cannot agree to S. Johns text For these words They went out of vs do not only signify that there was a Division but that one part went out of a whole and not the contrary And the same Objection you may make against the Text Act 45.24 Some went out from vs. And Act 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things But as I sayd you may easily be confuted by the same reflection which I made vpon S. Johns words These Texts are vrged by Chaâ—ity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 251. to proue that separation from the vniversall Church is a marke of Heresy which he also proves out of Vincentius saying Lib Adversus Haer Cap 34. Who ever began Heresyes who did not first separate himselfe from the vniversality antiquity and consent of the Catholique Church Obserue that he saith from the vniversality of the Church and not a separation or Division of one part of the Church from another The same he proves out of S. Prosper Dimid temp Cap. 5. a Christian communicating with the vniversall Church is a Catholike and he who is divided from Her is an Heretike and Antichrist Behold still a separation from the Church and not a Division of one part of the Church from another And S Ciprian saith Lib de Vâ—â—t Eccles Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresyes and Schismes are bredd afterwards while they make to themselves diverse conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of truth Doth not this Saint clearly declare that Heretikes and Schismatiks depart from the Church and gives the reason because they haue their beginning after the Church and so the Church departs not from them but they from the Church which is the Argument even now cited out of Charity Maintayned Chap. 5. N. 35. S. Thomas 22. Quest â—9 Ar. Corp defines Schismatiks to be those who willingly and wittingly divide themselves ab vnitate Ecclesiae from the vnity of the Church S Hierome vpon those words Tit
one cannot be saved without Repentance vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is vndoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small Now what can be more evident than this consequence and conclusion And yet you say The conclusion is true though the consequence of it from the former Premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it and then you add the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance and esteemed to be so And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of and deliver it in these words God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion necessary to be decided this meanes is vniversally infallible Therfore of two that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connexion between these Propositions I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation in the Greeke Epigramme and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe judges sentence and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme Thus you But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme and his words which I haue even now alledged cleare him from your vaine imputation and fond collection He sayd expressly vnless ignorance plead excuse which makes the errours against Divine Revelation to be sinfull and damnable seing he speakes of persons not excused by ignorance Neither hath he those words which you add necessary to be decided nor those other which they esteeme a matter of Faith yea he spoke formally and expressly of two men dissenting in matters of Faith and not in Points which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith And because you thinke it impossible to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions let vs suppose some Truth to be revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two by a Propounder infallible in himselfe and by them certainly believed to be such which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned and that one of them contradicts the other and consequently by so doing opposes a Truth testifyed by God and sufficiently propounded as such And then what say you to this syllogisme Whosoever opposes a Truth witnessed by God and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by a propounder believed by the party himselfe to be infallible committs a grievous sin and so cannot be saved without repentance but in the case proposed one of the two contradicting partyes opposeth a Truth revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding by such an infallible propounder Therfore he committs a grievous sin Yourselfe here N. 13. grant that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or haue no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contayned as it happens in our case wherin we suppose that the erring party is in sinfull errour by reason of opposing an infallible Propounder of Divine Truths whosoever that Propounder be This very thing you grant also in the N. 11. where you say Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes and the partyes in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissension this were in one of them direct oposition to the testimony of God and vndoubtedly a damnable sin Which is the very thing that Ch Ma clearly affirmed And now you haue lost your jeast out of the Greeke Epigramme turned by you into a Satyre Thrice happy had it beene for you to haue been deafe dumbe and blind rather than to haue ever heard or spoken any thing or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes and wicked Heresyes of yours which openly destroy Christian Religion But there is a just judge who is neither deafe nor dumbe nor blind but heares and sees and punisheth all pride contempt and Heresy and the Approbators of them if they do not repent and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance 17. You speake N. 11. to Ch Ma in this manner You may hope that the erring Part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or vnavoydable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God and he might know were he voide of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often Concerning which words I aske how can that be a sin which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance or vnavoidable prejudice For if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable and consequently invincible and as you expressly say excusable how can the errour itselfe be sinfull Or if it be a fault as you say it is how is it not a grievous fault consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation which you perpetually profess to be damnable Or how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men 18 To your saying N. 12. That it is against Charity to affirme that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions I answer as yourselfe and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions if their not seing those consequences proceede from some voluntary vincible roote as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull and damnable when they are Effects of sinfull causes 19. In the N. 13. I will only touch in a word that in saying S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture You either grant that it is not a Point of Faith That Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid Wherin for ought I know you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants and in particular your English Church or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith which is not contained in Scripture 20. In your N. 14.15.16.17 there is no difficulty Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question wherin Ch Ma alwayes supposed that speech was of Points contained in Scripture and that a man opposed the Scripture culpably For which cause N. 17. he sayd According to Protestants Oppose not scripture there is no errour against Faith Oppose it in any least Point the
his fourth Chapter Pag 788. Chap 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schisme Pag 846. Chap 15. The answer to his sixth Chapter about Heresy Pag 884. Chap 16. The answer to his seaventh Chapter that Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to reunite themselves to the Roman Church Pag 932. Touching the necessity of diuine Grace for all vvorkes of Christian Piety I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction giues me iust cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet Ieremy c. 9.1 VVho will giue water to my head and to myne eyes a fountayne of teares and v. 18. Let our eyes shed teares and our eye liddes runne downe with waters And c. 13. v. 17. My soule shall weepe because of the pride a S. Aug. l. 2. de peccatorum meritis remiss cap. 18. saieth Ipsa ratio quemlibet nostrum quaetentem vehementer angustat ne â—ic defendamus gratiam vt liberum arbitrium auferre videamur rurlus ne liberum sic asseramus arbittium vt SVPERBA IMPIETATE ingrati Dei gratiae indicemur O England what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith and to beleeue Faith to be only a probable assent because Reason cannot with euidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true O soules deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sinnes and his Merit of supernaturall Grace to enable our nature towards workes of Piety Be not eleuated Jerem 13.16.17 but Giue you glory to our Lord your God before it wax darke and before your feet stumble at the darke mountaynes Otherwise you shall looke for light and he will turne it into the shaddow of death and into darknes But if you will not heare this in secret my soule shall weepe because of the pride b S. Anselmus ad illud 1. Cor. 4. Quid habes quod non accepisti sayth Fecit Deus vt esses tu fecisti vt bonus esses absit Si enim Deus dedit vt esses alius tibi dare potuit ut bonus esses melior est ille qui dedit ut bònus esses quam ille qui dedit ut esses Sed nullus Deo melior igÃtur à Deo accepisti esse bonum esse Thus sayth our Lord let not the wise man glory in his wisdome but he that gloryeth let him glory in this because I am the Lord that doe mercy For it is not Rom. 9.16 of the willer nor of the runner but of God that sheweth Mercy by freely offeringe Pardon Grace and Glory Let vs not ô let vs not make vaine the Life Sufferings Death Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate by setting vp an idol of reason but let vs say with the Apostole Galat. 2.21 I cast not away the Grace of God For if iustice by the Lawe of Mòyses if Faith by reason then Christ dyed in vaine II. But heere some will not faile to aske the reason why I should treate this seeming farre fetchd matter in this occasion The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully deliuered by me in this place as it will of it selfe appeare in severall occasions through this whole worke For the present I say that the necessity of supernaturall grace being once established the most substantiall parts of M. Chillingworths booke will remaine confuted For jf Divine faith be the Gift of God infused into our soules and that we cannot exercise any one Act therof without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost it followes immediatly and clearly against his fundamentall and capitall heresie that Christian Faith must be infallible and exempt from all possibility of errour or falshood It being an evident and certaine truth that the supreme and Prime Ueritie cannot by his speciall supernaturall motion inspire a falshood S. Iohns aduise 1. Ioan 4.1 is Beleeue not euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God But if we find our spirit to be of God and yet maintayne that it may be stayned with errour what further triall can we make must we raise vp the spirit of man and rely on the strength of reason to trye and so perhaps to check and reject the spirit of God though knowne and acknowledged to be his spirit We reade in holy Scripture Deuter c. 18.21.22 If in secret cogitation thou answer How shall I vnderstand the word that our Lord spake not This signe thou shalt haue That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to passe that our Lord hath not spoken but by the arrogancy of his mynd the Prophet hath forged it Which yet were no good or infallible signe if the spirit of God who spoke by the Prophets could inspire a falshood III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselues who will not deny to be true what Caluin Jnstit l. 1. c. 7. saith Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferred before all reason And even Chillingworth Pag. 145 n. 33. saieth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit IV. Besides if the Theologicall vertues of Hope and Charity be the Gifts of God and their Acts require supernaturall assistance Faith also by which they are directed must be supernaturall and require Gods particular Grace which excludes all falshood Jf Faith Hope and Charity be Gifts infused by God not acquired by Acts proceeding from our naturall forces and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience as we may be of acquired naturall Habits Jf they be Powers to enable not meere Habits to facilitate vs in order to Actions of Piety we must inferre that they are not to be increas'd or diminishd lost conserved or acquired or measured according to the rate of naturall Habits Which truth being once granted his doctrine that Repentance consists in the rooting out of all vicious habits That Charity may consist with deadly sinne and Faith with heresy and the like Tenets instantly fall to the ground their whole foundation being an imaginary paritie or rather identity of infused and naturall Habits or Gifts as will appeare when such particular points shall offer themselues to be examined V. Heere I cannot forbeare to reflect in what manner they who haue once withdrawne their beleife and obedience from Gods Church and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith do runne into extremes Some of them to maintayne the necessity of Grace denie freewill others in direct opposition to these giue all to free-will and denie the necessity of Grace Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God yea they teach that the guilt of sinne still remaining doth stayne all our actions
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt
pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching § 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and § 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatè by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to
se loquendo of two dissenting in matters revealed by God one must oppose his divine revelation and Veracity which is evidently true but also that de facto it is so in many millions yea in the far greater part of Protestants who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony and committ a deadly sin not because others as you speak belieue a thing to be revealed by God which Ch. ma. never sayd nor dreamed but because they themselves ought to haue believed that same thing to be revealed which others did belieue to be such and indeed was such Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne and which ought to be knowne by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs fundamentally But some Protestants you say millions yea the greater part disbelieue those things which others belieue to be testifyed by God and which are and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed Therfere some Protestants yea millions and the greater part of them impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally 9. But yet that it may further appeare how much you wrong Ch Ma I must set downe his words which Chap 3. N. 3. are these The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Because till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them And the like is of Points not fundamentall which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner What could be sayd more clearly to shew that Ch Ma spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects but expressly of such as are really testifyed by God and not only believed to be such by others but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths and which therfore bring with them a most strict obligation to be believed Your little respect to truth hath forced me to be longer in this point than I expected or desired to be And I hope it appeares that you had no other cause except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants because forsooth some of them disbelieue and wittingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God Seing Cha Ma expressly required that what others believed to be testifyed by God should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe before he could be obliged to belieue which sufficient proposition being supposed yourselfe do not deny but it is a damnable errour to disbelieue any such truth 10. Your N. 18. hath two good propertyes Falshood and Confusion or Obscurity You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know and there you stop but Charity maintayned added these words but that some of them disbelieue and directly and wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall c Now I pray is there not a maine difference between ignorance or a not knowing or Nescience of a thing which another believes and a positiue opposition or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes How many truths are there which men do not know and yet erre not against them be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them by way of Affirmation or negation but they carry themselves privatively or in a certaine manner passively or abstractively as if there were no such objects 11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth You say I would gladly know whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also Answer I vnderstand not well what you meane by differing in profession only or in opinion also Do you meane that they make profession of differing in opinion when indeed they do not differ This were to dissemble and ly in matters of Religion But whatsoever your meaning be I answer that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants differing in opinion one disbelieving what another believes as you confesse out of His words But you are willing to raise difficultyes where otherwise none could appeare 12. But then you say If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions It being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and belieue the contrary or know it and not belieue it And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I answer this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they do not belieue 13. Answer Though it be much against my inclination yet truth commands me to say that here you shew either great ignorance or else write directly against your owne knowledge where you will needs confound pure ignorance with positiue Errour the difference of which I shewed even now and what Logician is ignorant of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is that is a meere want of knowledge of some truth or a positiue errour contrary to it And by your leaue your saying If they differ in opinion they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions is so far from being true speaking of pure ignorance that it implyes contradiction to say He who errs is ignorant seing to be purely ignorant in the sayd division of ignorance is one member into which ignorance is divided and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance For it were to say one hath no knowledge at all and yet hath a false knowledg or a privation is a positiue entity and a Nothing a Something Your objection He who errs knowes not the contrary Truth and if he knowe not the truth he is ignorant of it is a meere mistake or equivocation For that he who errs knowes not or is ignorant of the contrary by a pure