or liuing as we ought is the cause of faith and as faith is the cause of Charity to which all being obliged they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof which you say is faith Wherfor vpon the whole matter your probable faith remaines only to such as keepe not the Commandements nor liue as they belieue which if they did God would rayse them higher to a certainty For thus you say Pag 37. N. 9. God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be truing and effectuall to true obedience and rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty Therfor a primo ad vltimum the weakest Faith if it be effectuall to obedience will bring men to certainty Therfore none de facto want such a certainty except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience And further seing you confess yours not to be certaine it must follow that it is not effectuall to true obedience otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty 73. But this is not all that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt Remember your doctrine Pag 379. N. 70. and elswhere that repentance necessary to saluation requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all viâ—es and the effectuall practise of all Christian vâ—rtues which whosoever performes exercises very perfect obedience and shall not fayle of being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners For if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience and so fall not into great sinne or truly repent by your kind of repentance he must passe to a certainty of Faith and so all in state of saluation both Saints that is who haue not sinned mortally and repentant sinners cannot want the spirit of Obsignation as you call it and certaine Faith Why then do you deceiue the world and delude poore soules with a fallible faith or perswasion and not absolutely proclaime to the world that infallible Faith is necessary since euen according to your grounds it is necessary for all sorts of people 74. Now all your Objections and my Answers being vnpartially considered let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them of demonstratiue conuincing inuincible cleare and the like and what reason you had to say P. 326. N. 4. These you see are strang and portentuous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fame haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and Piety sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity And therfor I must intreat and adjure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it 75. I answer S. Paule had good reason to say Scientia inflat 1. Cor 8.1 Knowledg puffeth vp it is a poysonous quality making the person swell his Arguments and all that he does or sayes swell and emptyness appeare greatness it is a multiplying glasse that stirrs vp in mens fancyes strang and huge apparitions from nothing But Sir remeber that your ObjectioÌ„s make no more against Vs Catholikes than PictestaÌ„ts who profess ChristiaÌ„ Religion to be infallible and I belieue will not belieue your bare word that these consequences are cleare Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting though resisted that is by a no-doubt as I haue shewed it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne it must bring with it Charity so perfect that we can make no progress therin For my part I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good as I haue shewed more than sufficiently though yet I must add that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine be strange and portentuous in themselues yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such For besides that the very same consequences which you deduce from our doctrine follow from your owne assertions as I haue proued answer I beseech you these few Demands 1. Whether it be more convenient that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity or that it should be compatible with a voluntary sinfull damnable not only Doubt but positiue assertive Errour as you teach Pag. 368. N. 49. and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy as I observed aboue or that it may stand with an assent that probably it may be false or with a preparation of mynd to forsake it if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it thaÌ„ you conceive your selfe to haue for it which for ought you know may happen as I shewed above 2. Whether it be worse that all should of necessity be perfect in charity by an Infallible Faith or that none can be perfect as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather That Faith is only probable and fallible and yet that the measure of our victory over the world and of our charity must be taken from Faith which you say is the cause of charity and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause Besides your brethren the Calvinists believe that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith and then seing according to your owne words if the cause be perfect the effect must be perfect and that the cause of charity is in their opinion perfect that is a sirme and certaine Faith it followes that their charity must of necessity be perfect and that no just man can make any progress therin 3. Whether it be more absurd to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes Or whether it be worse to teach that one cannot breake the commandements which you against all truth impute to vs Or that he cannot keepe them euen with the assistance of Gods grace which is the common doctrine of Protestants Thus then it is not our doctrine but the errours of you and your brethren that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity And what a Paradoxe is this A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity as yon are pleased strangly to speake directly against the admonition of S. Peter 1. Pet 5. cui resistite fortes in Fide whom
are written that you may belieue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God and that believing you may haue life in his name John 20. V 31. By these are written may be vnderstood either those things are written or these signes are written Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell or less then all and therfor all much more was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life 169. Answer Of this Text we haue spoken already Who would ever haue dreamed of this Argument S. John sett downe in his Gospell as much of the Miracles which our B. Saviour wrought as was sufficient to oblige men to belieue that he was the Son of God Therfor he sett downe evidently all things necessary to salvation as if nothing were necessary except the belief of that single Point or as if none can be damned if he belieue that Point which is to say no Christian can be damned For he who believes not Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Messias is no Christian Doth the Apostles Creed consist only of that Poynt And yet Potter and you say it containes only things belonging to Faith Do not many Heretiks beleeve that Point Yea if they did not belieue that Article they were not Heretikes but Jewes Turks or infidells and Aposttaes from Christian Faith Suppose S. John had written only some Miracles sufficient to proue Jesus Christ to be the Son of God without mentioning any other doctrinall point at all who will say that he had evidently sett downe all things necessary to salvatiō And S. John Epist 1. C. 2. V. ◠saith these things I write to you that you may not sinne as he saith in his Gospell These things are written that ye may belieue that Jesus is Christ the son of God Therfor as you will not say that in that Epistle he evidently setts downe all Points of Faith and other conditions required for keeping the commandements and avoyding sin but only that he wrote it to that end which yet was not to be obtained by that Epistle alone so although S. John saith Ep. 1. C. 1.4 These things we write to you that your ioy may be full yet the contents of that Epistle alone could not giue full ioy which requires the state of Grace and observation of all things belonging to Faith and Good life Nothing is more ordinary than to attribute an effect to some one cause because indeed it is a cause though it alone be not sufficient to produce such an effect He that shall belieue and shal be baptized shall be saved Mark 16.16 and yet Historicall Faith alone even according to Calvinists togeather with baptisme is not sufficient for salvation Luther Postilla in Dominic 5. post Pasch saith Here we see that to belieue in Christ doth not consist in believing that Christ is one Person which is God and man For this would availe no man Sadeel Resp ad Artic abjurat 33. Pag 495. saith it is not enough to belieue that Iesus Christ came into the world that he suffered death that he rose againe and ascended into Heaven for this Historicall Faith will not saue me This you did see and therfor to helpe the matter you closely add that S. John wrote sufficient to make men belieue that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to eternall life With lively Faith Therfor not by believing that Point alone Jesus is the Son of God A lively Faith signifyes the belief of all other Points of Faith and all things necessary for keeping all the Commandements and you should haue proved that S. John setts downe in his Gospell evidently all Points belonging to Faith and manners Here I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that there cannot be given a Catalogue of necessary or fundamentall Points of Faith and yet it may be easily and speedily given and you actually give it in this place if the belief of this Article alone Iesus Christ is the Son of God will certainly bring men to eternall life 170. But indeed is this Poynt which you alledg cleare and evident in S. Johns Gospell You could scarcely haue picked out a place or Poynt less for your and more for our purpose Do not Protestants differ both from Catholiks and amongst themselves about the Consubstantiality Merit and Satisfaction of out B. Saviour And for that which you say was S. Johns prime intent in writing his Gospell Vt credatis That you may belieue do not you in this differ from other Protestants toto genere as much as a belief only probable and fallible differs from a most certaine and infallible assent And concerning the words that you may haue life in his name do not you and your Socinian brethren differ from other Protestants who belieue the Value of our Saviours workes his Merit Satisfaction for our sinnes and Redemption of mankind And so in his name must be vnderstood by different Protestants in a very different sence which is the life of scripture In which maine differences you in your Principles will not say but that many or divers or at least some Protestants do sincerly seeke the true meaning of scripture and therfor could not disagree among themselves and from Catholikes if those words of S. John were evident according to your owne Rule That a thing is not evident when men so qualifyed disagree about it Catholique Bishops did overthrow the Arians who made no end of alledging scripture for their Heresy by Tradition and the word homoousion which is not found in scriprure And so you could not haue brought any Text of greater strength to proue the necessity of Tradition and of a Living Judg then this which you alledg for the evidence and sufficiency of scripture alone and if this Text itself be so difficult how can you by it proue that all other necessary Points are evident especially if we reflect on your words Pag. 93. N. 106. That the Evangelists wrote not only for the learned but for all men And therfor that they intended to speake plaine even to the capacity of the simplest A pretty paradox that the simplest are able to learne with certainty out of the bare words of scripture alone the most sublime mysteryes of Christian Religion which is more than the learned can do without observing divers Rules exceeding the capacity of the vnlearned and yet this absurdity cannot be avoyded if scriprure alone be the sole Rule of Faith because God hath provided meanes of salvation both for the learned and vnlearned and therfor if there be no other meanes beside scripture it must be cleare to all sorts of people What is this but to cast men into despayre 171. By what hath bene sayd there offers it self an easy answer to the Objection which you make Pag. 93. N. 105. Where speaking of the Evangelists
poynt so prime a principle in Christian Diuinity so intrinsecall and essentiall to Christianity so fully effectually and frequently declared and vrged in Holy Scripture that the greatest enemyes of Gods grace Pelagius and his fellowes vvere forced to acknowledg it in vvords though dissemblingly XV. The same necessity of Grace is taught by the Protestant Church of England once so stiled in the 10. Article of the 39. in these vvords The condition of man after the fall of Adâ—m is such that he cannoâ— turne and prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works to Faith and calling vpon God wherfore we haue no power to dâ—e good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the Grace of Ged by Christ preuenting vs that we may haue a good will and working with vs when we haue that good will If anie say these Articles are now of small account and little less then disarticled I answer they haue this specious title Articles agreed vpon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Prouinces and the whole Cleargie in the Conuocation holden at London in the yeare 1562. For auoiding diuersities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion If now they carry so small authority their Title should haue bin directly contrary to what it is Articles agreed vpon for the establishing diuersityes of opinions and for the auoiding of consent touching true Religion As these Atticles are now despised so what soeuer shall euer be proposed or sett downe by any other will neuer be to any purpose for the establishing of consent in matters of Faith and Religion till England returne to the roote from which it hath diuided it selfe and seriously reflect into what precipices it is fallen by forsaking Rome and rejecting an jnfallible liuing judge of controversyes for who can giue any man of iudgment a satisfactory reason vvhy so many pretended Bishops vvere not of as good credit as others or wy others are not as much to be belieued as those Bishops I beseech euery one to whom the saluation of his soule is deare to ponder in good earnest this consideration and then to obey S. â—hons saying Apoc. 2.5 Be myndfull from whence thou art fallen and doe pennance SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Belieue XVI FAith being as the Apostle sayth Hebr. c. 11.1 the substance of things to be hoped for and foundation of our spirituall life if it proceede from our naturall forces or reason the vvhole edifice of our saluation must be ascribed to our selues vvhich vvere a most proude and luciferian conceypt and yet I reade in M. Chillingworth Pag. 375. n. 55. these words Neither do we follow any priuate meÌ„ but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and REASON which is also the gist of God giuen to direct vs in all our actions in the vse of this rule And through his vvhole booke speaking of that Faith vvhich God requires of all men as their duty he teaches that it is only such as is proportionable to humane probable Inducements or a Conclusion by rationall discourse euidently deduced from such probable Premises Pa. 36. n. 9. He speakes of jnfusion as of a particular fauour aboue the ordinary measure of Faith And n. 8. God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as much as the Premises deserue And Pag. 212. n. 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion then the Premises deserue to build an infallible Faith vpon Motiues that are only highly credible and not infallible And Pa. 381. n. 74. He speaking of our Catholique Faith vvhich he denyes not to be for substantiall fundamentall poynts true faith for he holds that true faith of some poynts may stand with damnable errours in other sayth I desire to know what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall vvhich demand vvere very impertinent if he did belieue that diuine supernaturall Grace vvere necessary for euery act of true Christian faith For if it be not supernaturall in essence how can the speciall motion and grace of God be necessarily required to it in all occasions though no particular temptatation or difficulty offer it selfe And he speakes very inconsequently in asking how vve know that our faith is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall since it is cleare that if the cause be necessarily and vniuersally supernaturall the effect also must be such and therfore he is convinced to belieue indeed that neither the cause nor essence of faith is supernaturall I grant that Pa. 409. lin 3. ante finem he vvould perswade vs that he hath no cause to differ from Dr. Potter concerning the supernaturality of Faith which sayth he I know and belieue as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reueald it not vnto vs but our Father which is in Heauen But euen in this we can gather only that he admits the necessity of some grace consisting in externall Reuelation or Proposition of the objects or mysteryes of Christian faith vvhich Pelagius did admit but not the necessity of internall Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost for enabling our vnderstanding to belieue supernaturall Objects vvith an infallible diuine Faith yea it is euident that he requires no such internall grace seing he expresly requires no stronger assent by faith then evidently followes from probable Arguments of credibility that is only a probable beliefe or perswasion vvheras if beside the proposition of the object he did require a supernaturall motion of grace eleuating our vnderstaÌ„ding aboue its naturall forces and measure of humane discourse it vvere very inconsequent to limit the assent of faith to the probability of jnducements or ArgumeÌ„ts of Credibility And yet he restraines our assent to such probability expresly because in rationall and naturall discourse the conclusion cannot exceede the premisses and therfor must be only probable vvhen the Premisses are such XVII For which cause when he speakes of particular Grace given to some aboue the ordinary course he confesses that it gives them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence as he expresly delivers pag. 37. n. 9. Which certainty in good consequence he could not denie to every Act of divine faith if he did believe that every such Act doth of it selfe necessarily require particular internall Grace of God aboue the forces of nature and beside the externall proposition of the objects or Mysteries of Christian belief Neither can it be denyed but that an Object of it selfe supernaturall may be belieued by the naturall forces of our Understanding with some probable naturall assent for Arguments euidently proposed as Miracles comparing of Historyes and the lïke reasons for which men belieue other matters of tradition since therfor he teacheth that
nor of the will of man but of God are borne Ephes 1.4 As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity and V. 13.14 In whom you also when you had heard the word of truth the Gospel of your saluation in which also belieuing you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise which is the pledge of our inheritance This promise is made to vs and so we being the Creditours the pledge must remaine with vs and signed signifyeth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall Like to this we reade Ephes 4.23.24 Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holyness of the truth and V. 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God in which you are signed vnto the day of redemption And 2. Cor 1.21 He that annoynted vs God who also hath sealed vs given the pledge of spirit in our harts Rom. 6.23 The stipends of sinne death but the grace of God life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14 Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God 1. Cor 3.16.17 Know you not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwelleth in you The temple of God is holy which you are 2. Cor 6.16 You are the temple of the liuing God as God sayth because I will dwell and walke in them Ephes 2.21.22 In whom all building framed togeather groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord in whom you also are built togeather into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost 2. Timoth 1.14 Keepe the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs. Ioan 6.57 As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father and he that eateth me the same shall liue by me Who can deny but that life signifyes an intrinsecall permanent thing XLIV To these authorityes of holy Scripture which clearly proue that just men are such by a gift inherent and not due to nature but supernaturall we might add conuincing Reasons grounded in principles of faith if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large But I will content my selfe with one taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we haue alledged and many more might be brought in this manner God concurres to certaine Actions v. g. Belieuing hoping c. with a particular influence aboue the naturall exigence of humane nature therfore such Actions are both Good and Supernaturall Good because it were impiety to say that God doth or can by speciall motion produce an ill and sinfull Action Supernaturall because no naturall cause alone can produce them nor hath any naturall exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerfull cause as though our soule cannot be produced by any naturall Cause or Agent yet there is an exigence in nature that it be created by God when sufficient dispositions are preexistent in the Body Now it being once granted that there are good and supernaturall Actions it followes that there must be in our soule some supernaturall powers or facultyes as connaturall Principles or Causes of such Actions therfor such Powers must be grāted as in thēselues are supernaturall and absolutely good without any tincture or staine or inclination to sinfulness Which sequeles are so cleare that protestants not deny them but grant at least the supernaturall Habits of the three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charity which is sufficient for our present purpose though I know not any generall ground or doctrine of theirs for which they doe or must deny the supernaturall infused Habits of Morall Vertues but they denie that either by these or any other quality or Gift we are just in such manner as that we do not still remayne stayned with habituall deadly sinne which heresy is clearly confuted by the Elogiums of the Fathers and Texts of Scripture alledged in this and the former Sections XLV For if deadly sinne still remaine how doth Grace take away the rust of sinne make the soule resplendent whiten it enlighten and make vs like to God is it the beauty and brightnesse of our mynd the picture and image of God the garment of heauenly beauty purity derived from Christ the first stole the riches of the diuine essence the marke of God since deadly sinne is of a direct opposite nature and produces contrary effects XLVI How shall holy Scripture be verifyed in saying that as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made just if we remaine truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam but not truly just by the obedience of Christ who merited for vs iustice and grace How is it true that if in the offence of one Death raigned by one much more they that receiue the aboundance of grace and of donation and of justice shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ For if sinne remaine Death also remaines with which Life cannot raigne How can the holy Ghost be giuē vs while we persist in sinne How can he abide in God and God in him in whom sinne and satan abides How can Faith worke by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sinne than which nothing is more repugnant to charity whose inseparable effect is effectually to detest all mortall sinne how is he a new creature who is in state of sinne which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man not of Christ How doth he cleaue to God and is one spirit with him who cleaueth to sinne and is one spirit with it vnles men haue a mynd to blaspheme and say that the spirit of sinne and the spirit of God is all one how can he who abides in God and God in him beare much fruite if ioyntly he abide in sinne and sinne in him Yea for this very cause that sinne still abides in man these heretikes teach that all our workes or fruites are deadly sinnes so farr are they from being fruites of Gods abiding in vs And how doth this agree with that saying 1. Ioan. 3.9 Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seed abideth in him seing sinne the seed of the serpent abides in him Or how doth the continuall breach of Gods commandements agree with what is sayd V. 24. He that keepeth his commandements abideth in him How can regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost powred vpon vs aboundantly stand with deadly sinne which is directy opposite to regeneration and renouation How is the seale and pledge of spirit in our harts togeather with the seale and pledge of the diuell How can the vnction which we haue receiued from him abide in vs in company of deadly sinne How are men partakers of the Diuine nature while they remayne in sinne which is most opposite to God and all the Diuine perfections How cā we be called frendes being deadly
is not perceyved to be repugnant to our Faith one may assent to it because one may belieue contradictions not vnderstood to be such as dayly experience teaches but then that doubt is not voluntary as it stands in opposition with Faith in regard that no such opposition is represended to our vnderstanding and so it is no way destructive of Faith 55. I need not say any more for confutation of this Objection Yet I deeme not this an vnprofitable Demand vpon what ground you say Euery least doubting in any matter of Faith if it be infallible though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of true and saving Faith For one act formally excludes only that which is naturally opposite to it and therfor why should One involuntary and inculpable Act be destructiue of all sauing Faith If the Doubt be voluntary and culpable it destroyes I grant all true Faith both Habituall and actuall though euen in this case of sinfull errour you must say the contrary and so ouerthrow your owne argument you I say who Pag. 368. N. 49. teach that a voluntary and sinfull errour against one Article of Faith may stand with true Faith and belief of other Poynts and the contrary doctrine you tearme a vaine and groundless fancy and therfor in your Principles one may belieue with absolute certainty some Poynts V. G. that there is a God or that Christian Religion is probable which you pretend to belieue with certainty or the other examples which I specifyd aboue out of your owne doctrine and yet doubt of euidency in some other poynt of Faith and so you must grant that euery inuoluntary doubt is not destructiue of all infallible and certaine Faith as you assumed in your Objection which now your selfe must answer 56. Beside you speake very confusedly in affirming that euery least doubting though resisted would be destructiue so long as it lasteth of all true and sauing Faith without declaring whether you speake of Habituall or actuall Faith or of both Acts if we speake naturally and Philosophically do not directly and immediatly destroy the contrary Habit and therfor there is no reason why an involuntary doubt should destroy the Habit of Faith But you will say At least euery Doubt is destructiue of the Act of Faith because we cannot at the same tyme doubt of that thing which we belieue with Certainty whether such a doubt be voluntary or inuoluntary I Answer I haue sayd already that an inuoluntary doubt or a doubt resisted is not receyued in our vnderstanding and therfor cannot exclude the contrary certaine Act of Faith Yet if for declaring the matter we will make an impossile supposition that an errour inuoluntary ād consequently no sinne is receyued in our vnderstanding I say in that case it will not destroy the act of Diuine Faith morally but only physically by a naturall in compossibility or incompatibility in the same subject or vnderstāding it hinders the exercise therof which may happē not only by such a doubt as we speake of but also by other lawfull occasions as sleepe serious application to some business requiring a perfect attention or by a resolution not to exercise an Act of Faith in some circumstances wherin one knowes he is not obliged therto and yet these thinges and the like which for the tyme exclude an Act of faith must according to your Objection be damnable sinnes as destructiue of all both infallible and probable Faith because they are incompatible with the actuall exercise of any either certaine or only probable Assent In how many respects is your Objection proued to be weake and contradictory to your selfe 57. Object 4. In the same Pag. 326. N. 4. you say The same is invincibly confirmed by euery deliberate sinne that any Christian committs by any progress in charity that he makes For seing as S. Iohn assures vs our faith is the victory which ouercomes the world certainly if the faith of all true belieuers were perfect and if true faith be canable of no imperfection if all faith be a knowledge most certaine and infallible all faith must be perfect for the most imperfect that is according to your doctrine if it be true must be most certaine and sure the most perfect that is cannot be more than most certaine then certainly their victory over the world and therfor over the flesh and therfor over sinne must of necessity be perfect and so it should be impossible for any true believer to committ any deliberate sinne and therfore he that committs any sinne must not thinke himselfe a true believer Besides seing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith Certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity and so no man could possibly make any progress in it but all true believers should be equally in Charity as in faith you make them equall and from thence it would follow vnavoidably that whosoever finds in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever discovers in his Charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith 58. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your Objection at large though the full substance therof might haue bene exprest in very few words notwithstanding your repetitions inferences and inuolutions which I will indeauour to vnfold by degrees and lay open the weakness of your Argument in these following reflections 〈◊〉 In conformity to your owne Argument you must grant that your victorie ouer the world the flesh and sinne as also your Charity cannot be perfect because your faith being acknowledged to be only probable is supposed by your selfe to be imperfect since you say we must hold that our faith is perfect because we belieue it to be certaine And who would not detest such an imperfect faith if it were but for this cause that your Charity cannot be perfect with it if your owne Argument be good And heere you put me vpon a necessity to add a new Argument for the infallibility of Faith to all the reasons alledged aboue For seing men may by Gods assistance ouercome the world and be perfect in Charity both which according to you are measured by Faith it followes that they may haue perfect faith and if you can say as you doe If the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect much more I may say if the cause be imperfect the effect which neuer exceeds the perfection of the cause must be imperfect and so if your faith which you say is cause of our victory and of Charity be imperfect the effect must be imperfect And therfore seing the effect of victory and Charity in Christians may be and in many de facto is perfect it followes clearly that they haue not a meere probable but an infallible perfect faith 59. Secondly your Objection
particular motion of Grace which irresistably drawes it Therfor from certainty of Faith we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will or perfection of Charity You preâ—â—â—d to belieue or know wit◠〈…〉 to be obayed in all things and coâ—â—â—equently that the woâ—â—d 〈…〉 ouercome you may know with certainty that the morall 〈…〉 â—ments forbidding Actions repugnant to the light and law of naturaâ—â—eason are to be kept You cannot but know certainly in generall that all sinne is to be auoyded You teach that men euen by euidence of reason are to belieue with infallible certainty that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued These things I say you belieue or know with certainty and yet I hope you will not grant that you cannot but obey God in all things and so ouercome the world that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements that you cannot but auoyde all sinne that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion Therfore you must yield that certainty in the vnderstanding doth not inferr a necessity in the will and so still be forced to answer your owne argument 65. In the meane tyme I cannot but note how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather though contrary one to an other and euen to your selfe For example of Pelagianisme that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done which takes away the necessity of Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost I sayd that the will may performe but wheras you teach further that it must of necessity do so you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme by taking away Freewill which the very Socinians defend so farr that to make men free they make themselues sacrilegious in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe who conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace or by infused justifying Faith but your doctrine must take it away by euery certaine knowledg though it be but naturall or by Historicall fallible Faith and historicall Faith according to Caluinists is common to all Christians And yet in another respect you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme and puritanisme that Faith once had can neuer be lost which is against moderate Protestants and yourselfe with Socinians For if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity and the victory ouer the world and sinne Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne is absolutely secured 66. Neither can you answer that your Objection goes not against all Faith but only impugneth an infallible Faith For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse as we haue obserued aboue concerning them who are aduanced to certainty and spirit of obsignation or Confirmation which are as many according to you who liue as they belieue as also 〈…〉 â—postles and those who heard our Sauiour preaching or 〈…〉 miracles yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty that there is a God and that he is to be obeyed must of necessity worke according to his knowledg which if he doe he cannot loose the belief of God nor euer become an Atheist which I feare is too much against experieÌ„ce You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine that only Faith justifyes seing as they so you teach that it necessarily brings with it charity and good works And to this same purpose I still vrge your owne assertio concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only and other Christians by some other meanes V. g. justifyng inherent Grace or with Faith Hope and Charity and therfor you must deny that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith 67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying Charing is the effect of Faith if therfor the cause Were terfect the effect would be perfect For the Habit of Charity being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost is not the effect of Faith or of any Acts of our will no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe But if you speake of the Acts of Charity they proceede from the Habit of Charity from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance which is freely offered by God and freely accepted by the will but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith whose office is only to direct and shew the object without any necessitating influence S. Paule sayth 1. Cor 13.13 The greater of these is Charity and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause Or if you say that Faith is not the totall but only a partiall cause of Charity which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe then by what logike can you infer that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause lesse perfect than it selfe Rather according to your discourse joyned with the words of S. Paule that Faith is less perfect than Chatity we must say thus Charity is the effect of Faith and therfor feing the cause is imperfect the effect must be imperfect which is directly opposite to your inference and intent Besides from what Philosophy can you learne that when some cause or condition concurrs to the production of an effect not by it selfe but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes that such a cause or condition can by it selfe alone produce such an effect But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity doth it follow that it must do so irresistibly and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all or to produce a more or lesse perfect one Remember your owne distinction and words to Char Maintayned in your Pag 172. N. 71. That a man mâ—y fall into some errour euen contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irr-sistibly so that he may learne it if be will not so that he must and shall vhâ—ther he will or no. Nâ—w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you poâ—â—â—y 〈…〉 it with your dâ—â—trâ—ne of free wâ—ll in betiâ—uing if it be â—ot of 〈◊〉 nature And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture conclude God may teach and the Church not learne God may lead and the Church be resrachry and not follow 68. Now I retort this Argument and aske why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught and which once he belieued and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly and who can
assertaine me that the direction of Faith is not of this nature and so faith may teach and lead and man be refractory and not follow and faith remaine without perfect Charity 69. Seuenthly you say Pag 329. N. 7. that the Apostles belieued with certainty and P. 37. N. 9. you grant that they who liue as they belieue will be advanced to as great a certainty as those which heard the Gospell from Christ himselfe which saw with their eyes c and yet I suppose you will not deny but that the Apostles and those other might encrease in Charity and that Faith in their vnderstaning did not impeach the freedom of their will without which there can be no obedience which as your selfe teach Pag. 329. N. 7. can hardly haue place where there is not possibility of disboedience as there is not when the vnstandin does all and the will nothing Therfor certainty of belief stands well with freedom to exercise Acts of Charity with great or little perfection or to committ deliberate sinnes 70. But let vs suppose that Certainty in Faith brings with it a necessity of Charity what will follow but that such necessitated acts shall not be capable of prayse or reprehension which can only belong to free Actions and then how can Charity heere be perfect if vpon just account and due consideration it be not so much as laudable Or how can any be commended for not committing a deliberate sinne which he cannot committ I sind in holy Scripture prayse giuen and eternall glory assured to him who could transgress and did not transgress doe euill and did it not Eccli 31. V. 9.10 but who will commend one qui non potuit transgredi non est transgressus non potuit facere mala non fecit Who could not transgress and did not transgress could not committ evill and did not committ it From whence followes that your Assertion if faith were infallible Charity must needs be perfect is so farr from being true that it should not be so much as laudable that is the Habit of Charity could not produce any Actions capable of prayse or if such Actions be free then it is in the power of the will to exercise perfect or remisse ones or to reject Gods Grace and abstayne from all such Acts and so Charity shall not necessarily be perfect Thus your Principles and sequels plainly destroy themselues 71. Eightly you teach That if faith were infallible it should be impossible for any true beâ—â—euer to committ any dâ—â—ikerate sinne and that in such a man Charity must be perfect and as we make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity and so none could possibly make any progress in it but all true belieuer's should be equally in Charity In which words I find such a connection as in true language should be called a manifold contradiction First in saying that such a man could not committ any deliberate sinne you seeme to suppose that he may committ indeliberate sinnes which being sinnes must be voluntary and free though not always so perfectly voluntary as those which are commited with full deliberation or reflection and worthly of blame and punishment and he who committs them in that respect loues God with lesse perfection than an other who is more vigilant and committs such sinnes more seldome and so all true belieuers should not be equall in Charity 2. If infallible faith take away freewill it depriues men of power or possibility to committ any sinne at all though neuer so indeliberate Or if it leaue them with freewill they may committ deliberate sinnes Therfor the difference in this place of deliberate and indeliberate sinnes is destructiue of it selfe 3. Wheras you say that as we make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity I answer you should haue sayd the direct contrary namely that seing you are not ignorant of our Doctrine that there be degrees in Charity it must follow that we also belieue that there are degrees in faith the Habit wherof is encreased by euery Act of of Charity as you also Pag 37. N. 9. teach that faith is encreased by devout and humble prayer and sincere obedience But this poynt puts me vpon a demonstratiue Argument against you in this manner You teach that if one liue as he belieues the spirit of God will advance him to a certainty in faith Now let vs propose two persons thâ—one indued with infallible Faith who according to your Objection must therfore be so perfect in Charity that he can make no progress therin nor committ any deliberate sinne thâ—other with your probable fallible faith who yet by humble and deuout prayers and sincere obedience makes continuall progress in Faith and Charity and therfor will at length arriue to a degree of Faith and Charity equall to him whom we at first supposed to be indued with infallible Faith and perfect Charity which being not insinite the other by dayly improuement of faith and Charity may and must at length arriue to the same degree of perfection And then all your Objections against vs for our infallible Faith do instantly fall heauy vpon your selfe who will be demanded whether such a man can committ any deliberate sinne or make any progress in Charity If he cannot do either of these why do you inferâ— as absured in vs the very same sequele which your self must grant If he can do both these things that is committ deliberate sinnes and make progress in Charity why do you say that he cannot doe so I do not see how you can auoyd this Dilemma and contradiction with your selfe 72. Ninthly you say Whosoeuer fynds in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoeuer discouers in his Charity any imperfection must not belieue that he hath any true faith But these or like sequeles follow from your owne not from any doctrine of ours For seing on the one side you teach that by Prayer progress in Charity and obedience men will arriue to the spirit of obsignation and perfect faith and on the other that faith is the cause and measure of Charity it followes that whosoeuer fynds in himselfe such a perfect faith which he must haue because he is obliged to liue as he belieues must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoeuer discouers in his Charity any imperfection must not belieue that he hath such a faith as he should haue Euery one therfor is obliged to haue a perfect faith both because he is obliged to liue as he belieues and to make progresse in Charity which will be the cause of a perfect faith as also because Faith according to you is the cause of Charity and so because we are bound to keepe the commandements and to haue Charity which is the effect we must haue faith which is the cause and so vpon a double account we are obliged to a perfect faith both as Charity
our Sauiour hath merited any thing for mankind and so we receive no Grace by Christ which was that which the Holy Fathers and Generall Councelles did detest and condemne in wicked Pelagians Wherby it appeares that your Faith is indeed naturall and yet being pretended to be supernaturall comes to be naturall and supernaturall And further I pray you remember what I observed above concerning an imaginary Faith of yours Pag 329 and 330. N. 7. acquired and infused which is in effect naturall and supernaturall I must therfor conclude that not our but your Faith is a free necessitated certain vncertaine evident obscure prudent and folish naturall and supernaturall assent 94. Object 6. Pag 37. N. 9. As nothing availes with God but faith which worketh by loue so any faith if it be but as a graine of must araseed if it worke by love shall certainâ—y availe with him and be accepted of him Therfor a faith absolutely certaine is not necessary to salvation 95. Answer First To worke by love is to keepe Gods Commandements of which one is that we believe as we ought And for you to suppose that we believe as we ought by a faith only probable is a meer begging of the Question which you should prove For although we should suppose that God had commanded no works at all as we distinguish works from Faith yet there would remayne a most strict command vnder payne of damnation to believe whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as a truth revealed by God with an Assent proportionable to the Supreme Authority and above all other Assents that is with an infallible and immoveable Assent And indeed of this Precept of Faith we may truly say This is the first Commandement the performance wherof is the first step to all merit Obedience Salvation And as in the eating of the forbidden Apple though the matter in it self might seeme small yet the transgression was a grievous sinne because that command was imposed by God to testify his Supreme Dominion over man so this Precept of Faith exacting the Obedience of our vnderstanding which is the first Power of our soule doth of it selfe oblige in a most severe manner even abstracting from all further works proceeding from the will by direction of the vnderstanding by Faith For God is Lord of our vnderstanding and exacts obedience of it no less than of our will 96. Secondly what you say of faith if it be but as a grain of mustardseed is both impertinent and against yourself For as I noted already those Texts of Holy Scripture clearly speake of Faith of Miracles as of removing a mountaine into the sea and not of Christian Faith necessary to salvation Neither by a faith like to a graine of mustardseed is vnderstood a weake probable and fallible faith like yours but rather a very great and effectuall belief able to remove mountaynes and trees as appeares Matt 17.20 Luc 17.6 And S. Paule 1. Cor 13. shewes that this faith of Miracles is very perfect saying If I should have all faith so that I could remove mountaines c And our Saviour declares that it is firme and certaine Matth 21. V. 21. If you shall have faith and stagger not not only that of the figtree shall you doe but and if you shall say to this mountaine Take vp and throw thy self into the sea it shall be done And Matt 13. V. 31.32 The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a mustardseed which a man tooke and sowed in his field Which is the least surely of all seeds but when it is growen it is greater then all hearbs and is made a tree so that the foules of the aire come and dwell in the branches therof Where learned interpreters say that A mustard seed especially in Syria growes to be a tree so that the birds of the ayre do dwell in the branches therof This shewes that as faith is compared to a graine of mustardseed because it is little to sight so also it is compared to it for Vigour Vertue Acrimony and Strength and in no wise for Weakness or any similitude with your fallible belief Which yet appeares more cleare by the demand of the Apostles Matth 17. V. 8. Why could we not cast him out And our Saviours answer N. 19. by reason of your incredulity and then brings that similitude of a mustardseed as contraposed to their faith which was but little and so the Arabicus hath propter parvitatem sidei vestrae by reason of the littleness of your faith But it cannot be doubted that the Apostles had some faith as you pretend to have otherwise they would not have attempted to cast out the Divel Therfor the Faith which our Saviour compareth to a mustardseed and opposes to theirs must be great and strong in it selfe though small in appearance or litle in comparison of some higher degree of Faith All which confutes your fallible faith and shews not only that you bring this example of a graine of mustardseed impertinently but also that it makes clearly against yourself even though it were vnderstood of Faith necessary to salvation in as much as it signifyes a great strength of Faith as farr different from your Faith as Certainty is distinguished from meer Probability Besides I pray you consider that Faith of Mirakles is not that Faith which workes by love and so according to your owne words cannot avayle with God and can avayle with Men only to shew how weake impertinent and contradictorious to yourself your Arguments are wherby you would proue that a weake Faith is sufficient for salvation when a strong Faith of the same kind that is of Miracles is insufficient This Answer serves for your other instance of Him that cryed Lord I believe help my incredulity Mar. 9.24 Where it is manifest that He spoke of Faith of Miracles namely of having his son dispossessed of the Divell 97. Now if your probable Faith be not sufficient to worke by Loue and fulfill other commandements which you cannot deny who measure Charity by Faith as the effect is measured by the cause and as you say Pag. 326. Nê° 4. Seing as S. Iohn assures vs our Faith is the victory which overcomes the world if the Faith of all true believers were perfect then their victory over the world and over sinne must of necessity be perfect Much more we must say according to your ground seing Faith is the victory which overcomes the world if your Faith be not sufficient for salvation your victory over the world and sinne cannot be sufficient for that end This according to your principles 98. But in true Divinity I say seing God hath so ordained that Faith should be the roote and beginning of all Obedience and Merit if it self be not a Faith sufficient for salvation how shall it be the beginning of Obedience or keeping all the other Commandements God proceeds with order and gives not Charity where he finds not Faith I proved in the Introduction that the Commandements are not
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
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
of Luther Cardinall Caietan being sent to Germany for that very purpose a safe conduct being assured to them And for Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and Obedience to Prelats they did separate from them as well as from profession of the same Faith one of their Errours being that our worship of God being corrupted they could not communicate with vs in Liturgy publike prayers c. Therfore they first did separate themselves Fugitivi non fugati the contrary wherof they are wont to affirme And not only they ceased to communicate with vs nor were content to hold their peace bearing with patience the corruptions of the tymes as they falsely styled them but also drew men to conventicles of their owne pretended to erect new Churches and set vp aultar against aultar and the like and this against the commands of Bishops and Princes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall You profess hightly to esteeme Hugo Grotius If in this you beleeue not me beleeve him in voto pro pace Ecclesiastica Pa 5. Intelligebam saith he ex seniorum relatu ex perscriptis Historiis extitisse postea homines qui illā in qua majores nostri fuerant Ecclesiam deserendā omnino dicerent neque tantum ipsi desererent nonnulli etiam priusquam excommunicati essent sed novos caetus facerent quos vocabant ipsi Ecclesias nova ibi facerent presbyteria docerent Sacramenta administrarent idque multis in locis contra edicta Regum Episcoporum dicerentque vt haec defenderent planè quasi de caelo mandatum haberent quale Apostoli habuerant obediendum Deo magis esse quà m hominibus Which refractary proceeding how much he disliked is declared by him Pag 31. Novum caetum vt nunc loqui mos est Ecclefiam colligere mihi etiamsi liceret non liberet video quà m malè id aliis cesserit Multiplicarunt numerum non laetitiam If you ponder the words of Grotius you cannot chuse but see how perfectly they agree to Luther and his followers and clearely confute this your Memorandum And indeed whosoever considers this Point will find it to be no better then non-sense and a contradiction to alledg this cause for justifying your separation since before any Excommunication men leaue the Church by professing a contrary Faith and in vertue of that new Faith forsake Her Communion and yet say that they leaue it because we require as a condition of our Communion that they leaue not that which necessarily and as I may say essentially and antecedently they of themselves do leaue whether we require it or no and therfore our requiring it cannot be the cause of that Effect which is preexistent before that which you say is the cause therof and would be the same whether we required it or no and we may say that Heretiks are the first as it were to excommunicate and divide themselves before the Church can excommunicate them Therfore this allegation of imposing vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity c is plainly impertinent and all must be reduced to the cause it selfe whether our doctrines be sufficiently and clearly convinced to be Errours and then whether such Errours being not Fundamentall can be sufficient to cause a separation And so I retort this ground and say that since you confess our Errours alone not to be a sufficient cause to excuse your separation from vs and for this reason you say Protestants are not obliged to separate themselves from one another you must also acknowledg that indeed they had no sufficient cause to divide themselves from all Churches 63. Secondly Yourselfe contradict this Memorandum For Pag 276. N. 59. You say Though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging vs to profess your doctrine vncorrupted against knowledg and Conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your Communion Now if our corruptions in themselves induce an obligation to depart from our Communion this obligation is induced before the imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and why then do you say that imposing vpon men vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation Since there is another cause precedent to that and such a cause as without it this other of imposing vpon men c cannot subsist For if our Errours in themselves do not impose vpon you an obligation to forsake vs it is a signe that they are not damnable in themselves nor necessarily to be avoided and consequently you may and ought to remaine with vs notwithstanding such Errours and if you ought to do so the Church may justly command it vnder payne of Excommunication as a punishment of precedent obstinacy and a medicine to prevent it for tyme to come and so yourselfe overthrow this memorandum wherby you would excuse your division from the Church Yet on the other side if our pretended errours do in themselves induce an obligation to forsake our Church different Sects of Protestants must for the same reason forsake one another because you deny not their Errours to be in themselves damnable and therfore you put a difference between them and vs only because they exact not of others a profession of their errours and we do and so you reduce all to this exacting or not exacting a profession of known errours and not to the errours in themselves and yet we haue heard you say that our Errours in diverse of which chiefe learned Protestants agree with vs against their Brethren in themselves induce an obligation vpon you to forsake vs. What is here but contradicting saying and vnsaying the same thing Which shewes that with you nothing is certaine except that you are certaine of nothing And consequently could haue no necessary and certaine reason to forsake all Churches 64. Thirdly To bring you out of the cloudes and to vnderstand things as they are The separation we meane when there is speech of division by Schisme and Heresy is not that separation which is caused by the Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommunication which deprives men of the publike suffrages of Gods Church of vse of Sacraments and conversation with faithfull people and may consist with the Grace of God and Charity not only when it is vnjust but also when the party censured repents himselfe by perfect contrition of the sin for which the Censure was imposed though he be not actually absolved from it in regard of some cause or invincible impediment which is not in his power to alter or remooue but hartily desires to be absolved and so is vnited to the Church in voto And this Censure of Excommunication is wont to be inflicted not only for Schisme or Heresy but for other offences also against God or our neighbour But Luther and his fellowes voluntarily put themselves vpon another kind of separation to wit from the profession of the same Faith and
sorrow which being once duly perfomed and accepted if any reall entity or habit chance to remaine it is devested of all formall relation to any Act as it was injurious and offensiue seing that Act is retracted and revoked and therfore remaines no more voluntary in the offending person as if we suppose one to haue shot an arrow or cast a dart with purpose to kill another and to be instantly by particular motion of the Holy Ghost strooken with effectuall sorrow and Repentance before the shaft arriue to the party against which it was levelled the wounding or killing in that case will indeed be sayd to proceed from the hand which discharged the dart in nature of a reall naturall effect but not in the nature of a voluntary morall sinfull action since all that which was voluntary and sinfull is supposed to haue beene retracted by true repentance before the effect was produced This which we haue declared by the example of one man compared to another that the Habituall offense or injury consists not in any reall Habit or Quality but in a morall consideration holds much more if we transferr it to the Habituall offense of man against God who though de facto he be pleased to forgiue sin vpon our Repentance yet considering the thing in itselfe he could not be obliged to forgiue our sin though our sorrow were never so perfect and though we were assisted to extirpate all vicious Habits by the contrary naturall Habits of vertue but besides all this and all that can be imagined to be done by vs there is required a mercifull and free condonation from his infinite Goodness whether by infusing Grace or otherwise I do not dispute for the present without which our sinns are not forgiven wherby it clearly appeares that the denomination of being an Habituall sinner or to be in state of sin consists not in any reall Quality or Habit since these may be destroyed and yet habituall sin remaine and these may remayne though habituall sin be taken away as likewise if we suppose Almighty God to hinder miraculously the production of any reall habits or Qualityes by not affoardingh his vniversall free concurrence or cooparation without which no second cause can produce any action or reall habits yet whosoever commits a sinfull action vnavoidably is and is denominated a sinner till he repent Therfore it is manifest that habituall sin or sin remayning Habitually consists not in any reall phisicall habit or quality and consequently habituall sin may remayne though the vicious habit either be destroyed or never exist Which shewes that your Repentance by rooting out all vicious habits is impertinent to true Repentance and forgiveness of sins 12. The second kind of habits which belong to our present purpose are reall physicall and naturall Qualityes or habits of vertue orvice produced by vertuous or vicious Acts which acts being immediatly voluntary and produced by our free-will are in themselves good or bad vicious or vertuous deserving prayse or disprayse reward or punishment But good or bad habits are not voluntary in themselves but only in their causes for as much as they were produced by voluntary free Acts which produce habits no less necessarily than fire produces heat in a matter capable and approximated nor is it in the power of man to exercise Acts good or bad and forbid or hinder them from producing vertuous or vicious habits When therfore a sinfull Act is once effectually retracted by true Repentance the habit which proceeded from it and was voluntary only in its cause or sinfull Action remaines now no more voluntary to that repentant sinner but retaines meerly its as I may say innocent reall nature and entity being in itselfe a dead Quality and no more a sin to such a one than sickness or death was to Adam after his fall and repentance that is effects of sin not sin They may perhaps facilitate and incline to Acts which may proue sinfull yet that facilitation and provocation being not voluntary but purely naturall is of itselfe no sin at all As the naturall inclination which men haue to certaine Objects may be occasion of sinfull Acts if the will giue free consent yet is not of itselfe any sin nor voluntary vnto vs but naturall and may be occasion of great merit if bad motions proceeding from it be resisted by our will assisted by Gods Grace And you might as well say that Repentance requires the destruction of our nature I meane that naturall inclination which Divines call Fomes Peccati from which sinfull Acts may proceed and which in Adam proceeded from his actuall sin which deprived him of Originall Justice as you require the abolition of all Habits inclining to sin and produced by sinfull Acts which being retracted by Repentance the Habits or effects of them can retaine no relish or relation to them as they were voluntary free and sinfull For which cause such Habits haue now nothing to doe with any sin either actuall or habituall and therfore it is impossible that they can haue any least repugnance with justifying grace Sanctity Charity and Loue of God and consequently true Repentance cannot require their destruction seing their existence is compatible with grace and Sanctity Besides if the Acts by which one vitious Habit is destroyed doe not of themselves destroy any degree of some other vicious Habits with which those Acts haue no connexion much less can justifying grace be incompatible with any naturall acquired Habits of vice these being of an inferiour nature and order to that and therfore habituall sin with which grace and Sanctity cannot stand consists not in such naturall acquired ill habits neither can the extirpation of them be necessary to true Repentance which may take away the sin though those habits remaine Morover the acts wherby some vicious habit is acquired may destroy some contrary vicious habit as for example Acts of Prodigality tend to the destruction of the habit of Avarice and the same may be sayd of all other vices which are Extremes in order to the meane of vertue But it is absurd and impious to say or imagine that habituall sin can be forgiven by any sinfull Act since no habituall sin can be taken away without Repentance which being a speciall supernaturall Gift of God cannot be a sin Therfore we must affirme that reall Qualityes which we call habits are not habituall sin otherwise sin might be pardoned by sin Which is further confirmed by considering that vicious habits may be expelled immediatly and formally by naturall habits and mediate by Acts wherby the habits of such vertues are produced For example The habit of Injustice by the Contrary habit of Justice and so other vices by their contrary vertues habits and Acts. And therfore if habituall sin consist in reall Qualityes or habits of vice sin shall be forgiven formally by a forme or Quality or habit acquired by Acts produced by force of nature which being but naturall yet shall be vltima dispositio
to supernaturall infused justifying Grace which is both absurd and the wicked heresy of Pelagius Lastly It is a certaine truth that whosoever departs this life in any one deadly sin vnrepented cannot be saved And it is also true that some habituall sin may consist with some naturall precedent habits of vertue which are not expelled by every deadly sin seing such a deadly sin may be cōmitted in some matter which hath no connexion at all with the objects of those naturall habits of vertue and therfore such a sin shall not expell such habits of morall vertues as de facto it doth not expell even the supernaturall habits of the Theologicall vertues Faith and hope And if habituall sin may stand with naturall yea and with some supernaturall Vertues what reason can be imagined but that habituall grace and Sanctity may consist with the simple entity or nature of vicious habits being cleared by Repentance from all former relation of being effects of sinfull Acts by which they were produced And consequently true Repentance which is a disposition to the infusion of grace may consist without the extirpation of the habits seing grace itselfe may stand with them 13. The third kind of Habits I call infused Habits of the three Theologicall vertues Faith Hope and Charity which haue for their immediate object God himselfe who is our last End and infused Habits of morall vertues which respect or haue for their Objects the Meanes which bring vs to that End Now for the production or in fusion of supernaturall Habits we may dispose ourselves by voluntary supernaturall Acts produced by the particular Assistance of the Holy Ghost but the Habits themselves are produced and infused into our soules immediatly and only by God and not Physically and really produced by any even supernaturall Acts of ours as naturall Habits are acquired and produced by our naturall Acts. And as our soule which is a spirit and the life of our body is created by God alone so no wonder if justifying Grace which is the spirituall life and soule of our soule be infused by God not produced by vs. This difference ariseth from the diversity of nature between naturall and supernaturall or Infused Habits Naturall Habits do presuppose a Power or Ability to produce certaine Acts and Habits are superadjoyned to the same Power for producing those Acts with greater promptitude and facility But supernaturall Habits not finding in our soule a power to produce of it selfe supernaturall Acts for how could they be supernaturall if they could be produced by naturall forces giue vs such power and Ability and therfore in rigour of speech should rather be called Potentiae than Habitus Powers than Habits For which cause I sayd Three sorts of Habits or as it were Habits ought to be distinguished in this Question For. Habituall sin is as I may say less than an habit being no reall or Physicall Quality the infufed habits are more than meere habits they are Powers as I haue declared Naturall or acquired habits being reall Qualityes on the one side and on the other presupposing in vs a Power to worke without them are really properly and purely habits It is therfore easy to vnderstand the reason why our Acts cannot produce supernaturall habits which giue vs Power to produce such Acts it being a cleare case that no effect can produce that which of its nature is the very Power to produce or the Efficient Cause in respect of such Effects which Cause must be presupposed existent and in being before it can produce such an Effect Otherwise there would be a mutuall causality and dependance between the first production of the Cause Efficient and the effect therof the Cause would be the effect of its owne effect and the Effect would be the cause of its Cause as if the Father should be son to his son and the son father to his owne Father 14. From this Ground That supernaturall habits are Powers without which our soule is not only weake or infirme but absolutly vnable to produce any supernaturall Act and therfore cannot be acquired or produced by any Acts of ours there followes another difference That naturall acquired Habits yield as it were a sensible facility demonstration experience and feeling of themselves by remooving impediments disposing the Organs of our Body and other such wayes But those other Habits giving vs the first Ability and Power and being in their nature essentially supernaturall are not discernable by sensible experience but may well consist with vicious Habits and with the facility or inclination which they affoard towards their severall Objects as it happens not seldome that a man who in the sight of God is more holy by supernaturall Grace is carryed with a more vehement inclination or impulsion to sinfull Objects either by his naturall complexion or vicious Habits acquired before his conversion than another made of a different constitution of body or clogged with fewer vicious Habits which greater propension to sin is so far from being any sin of itselfe that it gives continuall matter of greater merit by frequent combats and victoryes 15. And here I would aske whether if you hold the habits of vice to be habituall sins even after an Act of Contrition or Sorrow with a firme purpose to amend you must not likewise belieue naturall acquired Habits of vertues to be justice and Sanctity in the sight of God And yet this were direct Pelagianisme evacuating the fruite of our Saviours Satisfaction and merit and is in itself manifestly vntrue For the End to which God hath elevated and ordained Man being supernaturall the Beatificall Uision or enjoying God in his Glory the Meanes which bring vs to that End must also be supernaturall and not to be compassed by our naturall forces and therfore naturall Habits of vertue acquired by our owne Acts cannot be true Sanctity and Justice which make vs capable of the Beatificall Uision nor can that Repentance which disposes vs for Heaven consist in the extirpation of vicious Habits in which Habituall sin doth not consist as Sanctity doth not consist in naturall Habits of vertue Neither may it seeme strang that you should belieue Sanctity to consist in the acquired habits of Uertue who hold Christian Faith to be no more than a probable Assent or Conclusion deduced by naturall reason from Premises evidently apt to inferr such a Conclusion As also who speaking of Charity say Pag 368. N. 49. It is against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sin the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated By which you giue to vnderstand that you belieue the habit of Charity to be produced by our Acts and to be destroyed by little and little as it happeneth in naturall acquired habits and that the presence of it may be discovered by experience which agrees only to naturall habits working in vs by a kind of experimentall way Wheras if you did belieue the habit of Charity to be supernaturall in essence not
one cannot be saved without Repentance vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is vndoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small Now what can be more evident than this consequence and conclusion And yet you say The conclusion is true though the consequence of it from the former Premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it and then you add the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance and esteemed to be so And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of and deliver it in these words God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion necessary to be decided this meanes is vniversally infallible Therfore of two that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connexion between these Propositions I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation in the Greeke Epigramme and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe judges sentence and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme Thus you But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme and his words which I haue even now alledged cleare him from your vaine imputation and fond collection He sayd expressly vnless ignorance plead excuse which makes the errours against Divine Revelation to be sinfull and damnable seing he speakes of persons not excused by ignorance Neither hath he those words which you add necessary to be decided nor those other which they esteeme a matter of Faith yea he spoke formally and expressly of two men dissenting in matters of Faith and not in Points which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith And because you thinke it impossible to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions let vs suppose some Truth to be revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two by a Propounder infallible in himselfe and by them certainly believed to be such which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned and that one of them contradicts the other and consequently by so doing opposes a Truth testifyed by God and sufficiently propounded as such And then what say you to this syllogisme Whosoever opposes a Truth witnessed by God and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by a propounder believed by the party himselfe to be infallible committs a grievous sin and so cannot be saved without repentance but in the case proposed one of the two contradicting partyes opposeth a Truth revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding by such an infallible propounder Therfore he committs a grievous sin Yourselfe here N. 13. grant that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or haue no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contayned as it happens in our case wherin we suppose that the erring party is in sinfull errour by reason of opposing an infallible Propounder of Divine Truths whosoever that Propounder be This very thing you grant also in the N. 11. where you say Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes and the partyes in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissension this were in one of them direct oposition to the testimony of God and vndoubtedly a damnable sin Which is the very thing that Ch Ma clearly affirmed And now you haue lost your jeast out of the Greeke Epigramme turned by you into a Satyre Thrice happy had it beene for you to haue been deafe dumbe and blind rather than to haue ever heard or spoken any thing or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes and wicked Heresyes of yours which openly destroy Christian Religion But there is a just judge who is neither deafe nor dumbe nor blind but heares and sees and punisheth all pride contempt and Heresy and the Approbators of them if they do not repent and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance 17. You speake N. 11. to Ch Ma in this manner You may hope that the erring Part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or vnavoydable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God and he might know were he voide of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often Concerning which words I aske how can that be a sin which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance or vnavoidable prejudice For if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable and consequently invincible and as you expressly say excusable how can the errour itselfe be sinfull Or if it be a fault as you say it is how is it not a grievous fault consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation which you perpetually profess to be damnable Or how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men 18 To your saying N. 12. That it is against Charity to affirme that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions I answer as yourselfe and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions if their not seing those consequences proceede from some voluntary vincible roote as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull and damnable when they are Effects of sinfull causes 19. In the N. 13. I will only touch in a word that in saying S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture You either grant that it is not a Point of Faith That Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid Wherin for ought I know you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants and in particular your English Church or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith which is not contained in Scripture 20. In your N. 14.15.16.17 there is no difficulty Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question wherin Ch Ma alwayes supposed that speech was of Points contained in Scripture and that a man opposed the Scripture culpably For which cause N. 17. he sayd According to Protestants Oppose not scripture there is no errour against Faith Oppose it in any least Point the
is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose Belike if it had been to the purpose that is against you you would not haue let me say even so much Truth togeather 9. In your N. 48. you speake to Charity Maintayned in these words Out of liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnderstanding to assent Yet not withstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes So the Scripture only to those that haue the eye of Faith Thus you But it is reason that the words of Charity Maintayned should be set downe as they are and not lamely and imperfectly as you giue them These are his words Part 1. Chap 1. N. 12. Pag 52. Let us suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnder standing to assent yet the similitude proves against themselves Protestants for light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therfore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith or as Potter sayth Pag 141. To all that haue eyes to discerne the shinning beames therof that is To the believer as immediatly after he speakes Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light therof and consequently there must be some other-meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith which can be no other than the Church 10 This is the discourse of Charity Maintayned and you must not contradict it vnless you will proclaime your selfe a Pelagian that we are able by our naturall forces or vnderstanding to belieue as we ought in order to Eternall Happynesse as the Eye of our Body can by the naturall abilitie thereof see colours For as I shewed in the Introduction we being not able of our selves to produce any one Act of supernaturall Divine Faith need the Assistance of the infused Habit of Faith which is a Theologicall Vertue or somthing equivalent to it to enable our vnderstanding for the exercise of every such Act and therfore the aggregatum of our vnderstanding and that Helpe is for the believing of Scripture as our corporall eye is for seeing of light or colours And then Scripture will correspond to light our vnderstanding with that supernaturall Helpe to our eye and the Act of believing to the Act of Seeing This being premised it will be found that either your Objections vanish into nothing or that you must be guilty of Pelagianisme as Christianity Maintayned sayd Pag 70. You say If Scripture do moue and determine our vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its owne effect now this very assent is nothing els but Faith and Faith nothing els than the vnderstandings assent And therfore vpon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith vnto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture itselfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the vnderstanding to assent that is to belieue them and the verityes contained in them 11. This is your Objection which goes vpon a false ground and doth not distinguish between the Act and Habit of Faith or somthing eqvivalent to it in actu primo enabling our vnderstanding to exercise supernaturall Acts of believing For Scripture doth moue and determine our vnderstanding only to the Actus secundus or an Act of Faith but not to the Habit of Faith or somewhat equivalent to it which must answer to our corporall eye which cannot be produced by Scripture If you had considered this Truth you would not haue gone forward and sayd neither is this to say that the Eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison faith Answers to the Eye But if you will not peruert it the Analogy must stand thus Scripture must Answer to light The eye of the soule that is the vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye and lastly assenting or believing to the Act of seeing For I haue told you that our vnderstanding in order to Acts of Faith alone cannot be compared to our corporall eye which by its owne naturall force can see a proportionate object and so your whole Analogy is made voide and all that you ground vpon it Thus we haue heard even Potter saying That Scripture is of Divine Authority the Believer sees by that glorious beame of light that shines in Scripture I would know of what Beliefe the Doctour speakes Of Faith in Act or in Habit If of beliefe in Habit then they are Believers before they see that glorious beame of light which shines in Scripture If he meane the Act of Faith then by that Act he sees that glorious beame which Act must therfore be the Eye wherby he saith the Believer is sayd to see And he speakes yet more clearly in these words following The Church is the watchman that holdeth out the light in open View and presenteth the shining beames therof to all that haue eyes to discerne it Therfore he supposes eyes to which the Scripture is represented which eyes being not only the naturall Power of our vnderstanding must be somthing els And the Protestant Amesius de Circulo after he had spoken much of the light of Scripture comes to say Tantùm fide vt oculo opus esse statuimus quae in spiritum resolvitur tanquam in causam Where you see he compares Faith to an Eye and we may aske him whether he meane of habituall or Actuall Faith and apply to his Answer whatsoever it be the same reflection which I made even now concerning Potters words The like difficulty and Argument may be made against the private spirit which if it be a particular Revelation that Scripture is the word of God distinct from the Revelations contained in Scripture it followes that Scripture doth not containe all Divine Revelations and that our vnderstanding with that Revelation must be the eye wherby Scripture is seene and not be produced by Scripture If it be not a Divine Revelation it must be tryed by the Beliefe of Scripture and so that Beliefe must be an eye precedent to the private spirit and consequently be an eye to itselfe and both come before and follow itselfe yea whatsoever that spirit be certaine or vncertaine a Revelation or not a Revelation yet it must serue for
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
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
except only by similitude analogy reduction or some such way For example we find not expressed in the Decalogue either divers sinnes as Gluttony Drunkennesse Pride Sloth Covetousnes in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greedines or divers of our chiefe obligations as obedience to princes and all superiours not only Ecclesiasticall but also Civill And the many Treatises of Civilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that divers sinnes against the light of Reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandements although when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull they may be reduced to some of the commandements and yet not so evidently and particularly but that divers doe it in divers manners Thus farr Charity Maintayned Of all this you thought sit to take no notice but only cavill at his words That Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstractes are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science or subject to which they belong against which you reply Yes if they be intended for perfect Summaries they must not omitt any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries Answer the Creed is a perfect summarie of those Truths which the Apostles intended to deliver therin Now for you to suppose that their purpose was to expresse all necessary points of Faith is to begg the Question in stead of answering the Argument of Charity Maintayned about the Decalogue of commandements though still I grant that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith in that sense which I explicated in my Observations 16. All that you haue N. 32.33.34.35.36.37.38 makes nothing against the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but confirmes it because you confesse that defacto there are many points necessary to be believed which belong not immediatly to practice from whence it followes evidently that Protestants doe but cosen poore people in alledging the Creed to that purpose for which they make vse or it as I sayd And besides seeing the particular points which Charity Maintaymed specifies N. 14. are either necessary to be believed by every particular person or at least by the whole Church which cannot erre in such points we must say the Creed doth not containe all necessary Articles of beliefe Morover you cannot be sure but that of those many important points which Charity Maintayned shewes not to be contained in the Creed some are fundamentall seing you confesse that you cannot tell which points in particular be fundamentall and so for ought you know they are fundamentall I obserue that you make mention of other particular points touched by Charity Mairtayned but omit that of Originall sinne because you doe not belieue it and yet Charity Maintayned N. 9. told you that S. Austine de Pec. Orig. Cont. Pelag. L. 2 Chap. 22. teacheth that it belongs to the foundation of Faith Lastly and Chiefly since the Creed alone without the Tradition and declaration of the Church cannot giue vs the true sense of itselfe and that in every one of its Articles are implied divers points not expressed which were afterwards declared by Generall Councels and which all are obliged to belieue it followes that even for those articles which you call credenda the Creed is not sufficient of itselfe To say nothing that for the maine point Dr. Potter and you yield vs as much as we desire to wit that the Creed containes not all Fundamentall points of Faith as Faith directs our manners and practice and so whatsoever you say of points meerely speculatiue imports little for the maine Substance of clearing Protestants from falshood and impertinency in alledging the Creed as they are wont to doe as if all were done which is required to Christians for matter of their vnderstanding and beliefe if they giue assent to the Creed though they differ in other articles of Faith which direct our lives 17. In your N 35. and 36. you make a florish about the Doctrine of Merit which is not a subject to be handled in this place wherof every one may find excellent Treatises in many Catholik Writers Only I say 1. That it is certaine Protestants haue alwayes supposed that they differ from vs in this point and therfor that our disagreement is in that Fundamentall point that God is a Remunerator as S. Paul saith and to this end only Charity Maintayned mentioned this point of Merit not to impugne the doctrine of Protestants in this place and therfor your discourse of this matter is plainly impertinent 2. That you doe not or at least will not vnderstand rightly our Catholik Doctrine about Merit which requires both habituall grace and particular motion of the Holy Ghost who therfor rewards his owne Gifts and you wrong vs in saying we make God a rewarder only and not a giver For this cause we acknowledge our workes of themselves or of their owne nature to haue no proportion with Grace and Glory and that by duty we are obliged to serue God as farr as he commands vs which hinders not but that by his Grace this very serving him may be meritorious a duty and yet a deserving as the servant merits a reward for the workes which he is obliged to doe which is much more evident seing de facto God hath not commanded all that he might haue exacted of vs in rigour 3. As else where so here you take vpon you to declare the doctrine of Protestants about merit without any commission from them who are so divived among themselves that it is impossible for you to speake as you thinke in behalfe of them all without putting yourselfe to maintaine contradictions For how can they pretend to any Merit or Obedience who teach that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements that all our workes are deadly sinnes that we haue no free will and the like 4. That you bring the very same arguments against the merit of Just men which your friend Uolkelius de Uer. Relig. Lib. 5. Chap 20. vrges against the Merit of our Blessed Saviour and therfore English Protestants who against you Socinians belieue that Christ merited and satisfied for mankind must answer your objections against vs. 18. To your N. 39. I say whosoever considers the words of Potter Pag 255. will confesse that he both approves and applauds the words of Dr. Vsher cited by you to which words I neede only answer that it is impossible that they who agree in points receyvea in the whole Christian world and yet disagree in any point of Faith be it never so small can with such a beliefe joyne holy obedience seing it is a deadly sinne and disobedience and as you confesse damnable in it selfe to hold any errour against whatsoever revealed Truth And so your discourse in the beginning of your next N. 40. falls to the ground it being impossible that agreement in Fundamentall points only can joyne men in one communion of Faith while they so differ in other matters as one side must be in a damnable
so all comes to be vncertaine vnless we admit some infallible Living guide 78. But here I must reflect how apt you are in every occasion to write contradictoryes You say of the places of Scripture wherby we proue the in fallibility of the Church that they are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other aâ—d made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority You say that those places are more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible which signifyes that it was not possible and yet a few lines after you affirme that it is possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it Is the same thing not possible aÌ„d possible or not possible aÌ„d yet not improbable Beside you say it is more likly those places which we alledg for the infallibility of the Church haue bene corrupted if it had been possible than any other aÌ„d made to speake as they do for our advantage Wherin you confess that actually some places of Scripture speake for our advantage and then who are you to controwle Gods Word and speak against those for whose advantage it speakes Morover you say no proof can be pretended for the infallibility of the Church but incorrupted places of Scripture where you signify that nothing can be proved vnless we know certainly what places be incorrupted Now I aske whether it was possible for vs to corrupt those places which we bring to proue the infallibility of the Church or it was not possible If it were not possible then you wrong vs in saying that it is both possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it If it be possible then as I sayd what certainty haue you that we haue not done it seing you say it is both possible and not improbable that we haue done so Or what certainty can you haue that others haue not done the like in other Texts for defence of their severall Doctrines 79. Lastly You still go vpon a false ground that we cannot proue the Church otherwise then by Scripture wheras we must first proue Scripture by the Church 80. 8. How vncertaine your kind of Tradition is appeares by your owne words which are such as no enemy of Christian Religion could haue vttered more to the prejudice therof than you doe Pag 90. N. 101. Where in the Person of a member of the ProtestaÌ„t Church of England you speake to Catholiks in this manner You haue wronged so exceedingly his Christs Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine which might giue vs just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones what Authority haue you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her Who with forging so many false Storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the Faith of all Storyes Questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who haue brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of Christ ô portentuous vntruth and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make susptâ—ious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull I pray you what good Christians were there before Luther except Roman Catholiques and such as agreed with them And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholicks Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne vncorrupted For if you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so vpwards till we come to Chrict himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embryos yet hatching and in the shell Thus you and then conclude Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farr from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude seeing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 81. Now let the Reader consider 1. If the Roman Church and all those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther that is all true Churches of Christ be such a thing as he describes what can they contribute to make vp any part of his vniversall Tradition Yea she must needs make it suspected for false fallacious fraudulent And then what Tradition will remayne creditable or even considerable The Greeke Church agreed and at this day agrees with Catholiques against Protestants as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants for which cause they did directly refuse to joyne with Luther and his Associates The Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy or vse Circumcision or for the rest agree with the Greek and Roman Church and they can contribute little to your Tradition I desire the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I haue now sayd of the Greek and other Churches Since then you blast the credit of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her against Protestants there will remayne no Tradition at all 82. 2. You say That we by forging Miracles Might giue just occasion had you no assurance of them but our Authority to suspect the true ones of Christ and by forging so many false storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the faith of all Storyes questionable if you had no other ground for your belief of them but our Authority This is your Assertion or Major Proposition to which if an enemy of Christian Religion will subsume and add this Minor which is evidently true But you can haue no assurance of Miracles and ground for belief of Storyes but by our Testimony or Tradition as I haue clearly proved What will be the Conclusion but this That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ and Question all Storyes Behold the effect of your Tradition This I confirme out of what you
say in your Answer to the Direction where having first set downe your nynth Motive to be a Catholique in these words Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning mayntayned with grosse falsifications and calumnyes wherof their prime controversy Writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty Your answer is this N. 43. To the 9. Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Which though it be very false as it touches vs and not so much as offered to be proved by you yet it clearly destroyes your owne kind of Tradition For if both Protestants and Catholiks be notoriously and in high degree guilty of gross falsifications in these tymes why may not the same be sayd to Heretiks in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last past to the six last Ages before them and vpward till we come to Christ himself And so neither Catholikes nor Protestants need now corrupt Authors or Historyes but will find it done to their hands vnless your meaning be that Protestants maintayne their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnyes and are more notoriously and in a higher degree guilty therof than any Heretiks before them But why do I speak by Inferences and argue by parity of reason Since you also expressly directly and immediatly assirme what I inferred while you say to vs If you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpō the Authors of the six last Ages before thē and so vpwards till we come to Christ himself In which words you say much more then I inferrd that by your reasō we could not be sure but that as Protestāts are by your owne confession notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree so former heretiks haue bene For you speake even of the Church and aske how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not Vsurpe the same Authority of corrupting vpon the Authors of the last six Ages before them and so vpwards till c And this will appeare more easy to haue bene done in the tymes nearest our Saviour and the Apostles when fewer Authors did write in so much as some Protestants affirme S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious and that helived Aº 140. And if the first writings and storyes be once corrupted what certainty can we haue of the rest And then Good Sr. If we cannot know but that the Church hath done this what is become of your tradition which for ought you proofess to know will deliver only fained Authors corrupted Storyes forged Miracles Apocriphall Scriptures But in this lyes a mystery not knowen to every one vnless he haue some acquaintance with Socinian Writers who press Protestants with this Argument If the Church might erre and is belieued by you to haue erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther and so vpwards from Age to Age till the first six hundred yeares after Christ which you say were pure what certainty or solid Reason can you alledg why the Church might not also erre in those yeares since you do not hold Her to haue bene Infallible An Argument vnanswerable by Protestants who ther for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible or els can haue no certainty that she did not erre or corrupt or permitted the corruption of Authors and Storyes and Scriptures and forging of Miracles in any Age farr from or neere to the Apostles 83. 3. If the motives of Honour and profit which you Object against the Roman Church Would be very apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerfull if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church I beseech you either informe vs what Christian Church distinct from the Roman or such as agreed with Her against Protestants was there before Luther to wipe away this your cause of suspition Or els giue vs leaue to inferr that you grant there was indeed cause of that suspotion You say Pag 14. N. 14. I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to proue a perpetuall visible Church distinct from yours If this be not necessary it remaynes either that it is not necessary to free Christian Religion from being esteemed a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors or that you are highly and even ridiculously injurious against the Roman Church as if she a one though not distinct from the Protestant Church could give occasion of any such wicked suspicion and finally that if still you will say there is any thing which would be apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion is a humane invētion it must be the Christian church herself which is a blasphemy fit for such as you are who reduce our belief of Scripture and the assent of Christian Faith to Probability Opinion and meere humane Tradition and such as being according to your Principles for ought you know corrupted is no better than a humane invention 84. 4. What you say of vs Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselselves into the streames by litle and litle some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently and some more lately makes as I touched aboue a faire way to say the same of some Bookes or parcells or clauses of Scripture and of any Point of Christian Faith which some insidel or Heretike or other enemy of Christian Religion will say came not from the fountaine of Truth but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by litle and litle c which being once granted as possible to happen and we are not sure but in fact that happened if we deny a Living watchfull Guide assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost Your Tradition will also loose all credit as being subject to the like danger of not coming from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but of being corrupted forged and having insinuated itself by litle and litle c For if this may happen so easily to Authors Historyes Tradition and Doctrine your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane Historye is manifestly subject to the same exception and totall vncertainty 85. 5. You say of vs who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted I beseech you where or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors Yourself know this to be a vast vntruth But if it were true and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted it seemes by this your owne saying you cānot haue your Traditiō frō any sort of Authors which may not be justly questioned whether or no they remaine vncorrupted And is