were not all freely given 3. Grace making us acceptable they will not have to be the grace of God by which he loves us and makes â—s acceptable to him according to that Wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved but to be grace by way of habit remaining in us by which we love God therefore they call charity a grace making us acceptable as if by reason of its force and merit men were saved of God 4. Moreover when they divide grace into sufficient and efficacious grace they say â—ufficient grace is given to all and every man even without the Church by which they have a power to will and they can if they will believe and by believing be saved 5. If any want sufficient grace to avoid sin they â—o not truely sin neither are they guilty of sin before God 6 That in the first act of conversion the will is not passive 7. That it is in the power of mans free will to resist oâ— yeild to efficacious grace § 12. Of Justification BUt now the doctrine of Justification they utterly overthrow 1. For first they confound justification which is an act of God without us as Redemption Reconciliation Adoption with Sanctification and Inherent Righteousness and so confound not onely the Gospel with the Law but quite take away Justification it self the chief benefit we have by Christ in this life 2. They teach men to lay the cause of justification and the merit of salvation in themselves 3. They will have remission of sin to be a blotting of them out by which not only the guilt but also the irregularity it self is abolished 4. As in warming the cold is expelled by the coming of the heat so in justification sin is abolished by the infusion of righteousness 5. Neither will they understand justification in the Scripture as a Law-term to be opposed to condemnation and Sanctification to pollution 6. The Scripture teaches sanctification to be an action of God they make the second justification as they call it not Gods action but their own 7. Whereas the Scripture â—eacheth that we are justified by the grace of God intimating the inward moving cause of justification which is the free favor of God in Christ the Papists understand grace or rather graces inherent in us which yet in the Question of justification wherein the holy Ghost opposes works to grace are not more opposed to works then their first justification is to the second 8. When the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by the righteousness of God and the blood of God i. e. of Christ who is God for by his obedience and blood we are justified and he is our righteousness I say by a righteousness which is not revealed in the Law and therefore not inherent but which is revealed in the Gospel without the Law They understand a righteousness infused by God and inherent in us 9. When the Scripture teaches that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ as he is made sin for us and so that the obedience of Christ is communicated to us for justification as the disobedience of Adam for condemnation namely by imputation But they say we are justified not by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ but partly by the infusion of habitual righteousness viz. in the first justification partly by our own performance of actual righteousness or good works in the second justification 10. For they contend for a double justification the first which consists in the infused habit of charity the other in meritorious works When as the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by faith without works i. e. not-by inherent righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ apprehended â—y faith and therefore that we are not justified by faith as it is a part of inherent righteousness for so with other graces it sanctifies us nor by any other faith then that which apprehends the righteousness of Christ or by any other grace because there is no other beside faith that apprehends Christs righteousness and therefore by faith alone 11. The Papists on the contrary teach faith to justifie as it is a part of inherent righteousness 12. And not so much to justifie as to dispose us for justification by obtaining remission and deserving justification 13. For say they faith and Repentance do justifie as dispositions and meritorious causes ex congruo 14. But that charity is properly the justifying grace 15. And the form of justifying faith 16. And yet that true justifying faith may be separated from charity 17. And therefore that a man having true faith may be damned 18. Neither do they acknowledge any special faith which apprehends the righteousness of Christ but they say that is sufficient which consists in a general consent without all affiance yea even without knowledge which they call implicite faith 19 For they say faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge 20. Neither can they indure by any means that we say faith only justifies 21. When as the Scripture plainly excludes works as causes from the act of justification though it require them in the subject or person justified as necessary fruits of justifying faith by which believers are justified that is declared to be just but they assert that we are not justified before God by faith onely but also by works as the causes of justification 22. And in this matter they make James plainly to contradict Paul 23. And they invert the disputation of Paul as if the Question he disputes were whether faith justifies without works but whether works justifie without faith 24. That men are justified by the observation of Gods and the Churches commands 25. That men deserve remission of mortal sins by repentance Almes deeds forgiving injuries converting an offending Brother and other duties of piety and charity by which we do not deny but our belief of the pardon of sin is confirmed 26. And that venial sins are purged away by the repetition of the Lords prayer by striking the brest by sprinkling of Holy Water and the Bishops blessing c. 27. That a wicked man may deserve justifying grace ex congruo and that this merit of congruity is when the sinner doth his utmost 28. They deny justificaon be to proper to the Elect. 29. That no man in this life ought certainly to determine that he is of the number of the elect 30. That every one must doubt of the remission of their sins 31. No man can be certain of his justification without a special revelation 32. That no man in this world ought to seek an infallible certainty of his salvation or justification 33. That doubting of the pardon of sin is not an infirmity but a vertue 34. For any one certainly to believe that his sins are forgiven him through Christ is abominable presumption 35. That
necessary and the ancient Churches used and we must use before it will be well with us 9 10. Some of them by satisfying God mean no more then the answering of his will concerning so much of duty or suffering as he hath laid upon us But others worse 11. The everlasting punishment being remitted the temporal punishment of God by the Magistrate or by fatherly castigation may remain And part of it doth remain on us all For he chasteneth whom he loveth 15. As satisfying God signifieth but a sincere doing our duty we may be said to satisfie him But to make him reparation for the wrong we have done him or satisfie his Law by perfect obedience or his Vindictive Justice by our sufferings here is impossible 18. Chastisement is a true and proper species of punishment agreed on 20 28 c. As satisfying God is but pleasing him all our duties satisfie 22. Prayer and a holy life is a delight and great benefit but accidentally may be troublesome so far as we are carnal and therefore requireth some self-denyal 24. One man may do a duty that conduceth to anothers spiritual good but not by merit 26. The Right use of Absolution applyeth Christâ—s blood declarâ—â—â—â—ly And is too much laid by in most Churches 1. Gods love or favor is our Radicall Grace from which flow both Relative effects in pardon justification adoption and Physical in our Renovation all which are called also Grace 3. To deny either Relative or Inherent Grace is to deny that without which there is no salvation The necessity of Pardon at least many of them confess 4. No doubt but all have so much grace that they may believe and be saved if they will sincerely Because though velle credere be not credere as Doctor Twiss answers it yet credere est voluntatis as Austin answers it But the Papists especially the Dominicans â—ffirm not sufficient grace to believe to be given to those that hear not the Gospel but onely sufficient grace to â—â— that which tendeth to this further grace 6. The will is first passive in receiving the Divine influx but active in the eliciting its oâ—â—wâ—a 7. The will hath natural Power or faculty to resist or yield which will not be brought into act for yielding because it wanteth moral power that is it is dis-inclined But to resist it hath too much moral Power which is impotency yet such as grace can heal 1. Perverting the term they cause a strife about a word 2. Some of them make merit of congruity which they say precedeth Justication to be properly no merit And some of them deny that there is any proper merit of condignity at all But others are gross in this 3. The term Remission also they abuse meaning by it the change of our qualities or putting away sin it self though forgiveness they take in with it And so they make many verbal controversies 4. This is true of Sanctification which is the thing they mean by Justification But by this abuse of the terms they misinterpret Scripture And also they so much hide the very being of pardon by perverting the words that signifie it that its hard to find in some of them whether they confess any such thing as pardon 6. As to the Act they make it their own by merited grace but the habits and the grace assisting they say is of God and the act say most 7. This is their verbal error no doubt that which they mean by justification that is Sanctification consisteth in Inherent grace 8. This they say of justification taken for sanctification but not as taken for Pardon But they are led still to misinterpret Scriptures by misunderstanding the word 9 Still they mean sanctification when they speak of justification But they confess that Christs sufferings and obedience are the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Renovation both which they use to comprize in the word Justification 16. They may as well talk of a third and fourth justification for sanctification hath more degrees then two But doubtlesse there is such a thing as that which they mean by a second justification if they leave out merit for there is actual obedience and increase of grace The Scripture saith we are justified by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ that is By assenting to his Gospel and accepting him entirely as Christ that is by becoming true Christians or Christs Disciples For a believer and a Disciple in the Gospel usually signifie the same thing 11. It doth sanctifie as a part of inherent righteousness and it is the receptive condition of Pardon 12. I would they said no more but that it disposeth to it for then they would not say it deserveth it 14. Still they mean Sanctifying 15. An absurd speech but they adde that it s not the form of faith as faith but of faith and all other graces as saving or as a new Life And we agree that faith is principally in the will and the Velle is by the Schoolmen called the Diligere 16. It s unreasonable for them to call that justifying faith which wants that which they take to be the form of it 18. They say it must be explicite in some points which we call essential and that we must believe in Christ as satisfying justice and meriting for us pardon and sanctification 19. That 's but some of them 20. They manage this controversie in the dark not agreeing with us in the sence of the termes of the Question 21. Neither faith nor works are proper causes 28. So did the Ancients even Augustine himself and too many Protestants 29. This also was too common with the Ancients and is now with the said Protestants 30 Some of them yield a certainty of present Remission and justifiâ—â—â—ion and moral conjectural certainty of Salvation 34. To be certain of it is a great mercy but to believe that it is a thing written in Scripture that I am pardoned is not a duty for it is not there 35. About this they differ See Magro in sent that faith hath certaine evidence which Ariminensis and others confute â—aying it hath evidence of credibility but not of cerâ—ainty 1. The meer appetite is no sin but the corruption and rebellion of it is 2. I would we could see one of them do it once It s a shameful arguing for perfection by bare words when none of them will give us a proof of it by their own example 3. They that believe this know not themselves 5. Piscator and other of ours maintain this Though a meritorious efficiency we all deny 7. The Scotists and many more of them deny this but so do not Bellarmine and many others 8. Waldensis und others of them deny all merit but that 's not common see instances in my Confession 6. Some of them say they are punished also with the pain of senses See Concius Tractat. in the end of Jansenii Augustin 16. Bellarmine confesseth that in such cases of fact and particular judgement thereâ—n the Pope may erre And so no Papists living can be certain but that they pray to the damned souls in hell whom the Pope mistakingly canonized 1 2. Yet we confess a Catholike visible continued Church 3. Some of our own say as much of late but they mean it of the visible Church onely 4. This is the heart of Popery 1. Hence Popery and Papists are denominated 17. Much of these by the French is ascribed to a General Council and denyed to the Pope so well are they agreed in their fundamentals 5. The French agree not to these 1. Of the visible Church we say the same 10. The Spaniards hindred the passing of that in the Council of Trent 5. 6. Have the Quakers learn't this distinction of perfection yet 25. In all causes materially they are but not in all formally for they are not the supreme in every sort of Government that is in Ministerial Directive but in their own sort that is coactive 2. What need you confess sin that can fulfill the Law so easily out of your own mouthes are you judged now that do not that which you think so easie 4. Others of them say the contrary 35. I would they had no company in this error 72 73. This may give us some light into the juglings of our times
to deliver them down to posterity in the purity as they receive them and to translate them into known tongues that the people may understand them Though others also have a part in this work yet the Pastors of the Church have by Office the chiefest part 4. It belongeth to them also to be witnesses and informers of the people how themselves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Ancestors and to shew them how it came down to our hands by certaine Infallible Tradition from Age to Age. 5. The Church guides they are both Preservers of the Scripture Witnesses of the Tradition and Teâ—chers of the truth and have such a power of judging aâ— belongeth to all these three 6. In these acts of their office they ought to be Believed and that on a threefold account 1. Because of the evidence which they shew to prove the truth of their Assertions Though strictly this is rather to be called Learning and so Knowing then Believing and is common to Teachers with any others that shew the same proofs Yet it being supposed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have therefore we may well say that it more belongeth to them to convince and more efficacy is in their Teaching because of their proofs and better entertainment is due to their Teaching 2. Such a Belief also is due to them as all men should have in their own prosession wherein they have long studyed and laid out their time and labor and wherein they are commonly known to excell other men Every man that is less studyed in Law Physicke or any other Science or Art is bound in reason to give some credit to Lawyers Physicians and others that Study and Practice those Arts. This is but a humane Faith 3. Besides this credit before mentioned which Infidells themselves may give to the Ministers of the Gospel according to their capacities there is a further credit due to them from professed believers and that is as they are officers authorized by Christ and have a promise of his assistance to the end of the world which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith yet doth it assure them of a more than common help of Christ if they are his servants indeed 7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Pastors caeteris paribus than to one and to the whole Church than to any part 8. The credit of the Church or any Pastors in witnessing to the faith dependeth on their competency for such a Testimony which consisteth in their sufficency or Ability and their fidelity which they are rationally to manifest that it may gaine credit with others 9. In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of they have a Decisive Power 1. For the Time or Place or the like circumstances of Gods worship they are necessary in General viz. there must be some Time Place c. but not in specie such a Time such a Place is not necessary unless it be some that God hath already made choice of Here the Church guides must Authoritatively Determine whereupon the people are obliged to obey unless in some extraordinary cases where the Determination is so perverse and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it that it would overthrow the substance of the duty it self 2. And in case of Church censures when any man is accused to deserve Excommunication the Church Governors have a Judicial Decisive Power as to those ends though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the person whom they Excommunicate except in such palpable mal-administration and evident contradiction of the word of God which may nullifie their sentence for even here their Power is not unlimited 10. No man or company of men much less the Pope hath a proper Decisive Judicial Power in matter of Christian faith or whether the Scripture or any part of it be the word of God or not For the opening of this understand what we mean by a Decisive Judicial Power to wit such as a Judge hath in a controverted cause where the Plaintiff and Defendant must stand to his Judgement be it right or wrong so that though the sentence be not just yet must it be Decisive and obligatory so that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem on either side and the judgement must be valid Such a Decisive power no creature hath in these cases that we have now in hand Where let it be still remembred that it is not the name but the Thing that we contend about If they will call that a Decisive Judicial Power which is so limited to one part or side that it shall not be valid or obligatory to the subject if it erre or go on the other side concerning which all men have a judgement of Discerning granted them by God so far as they are able to Discerne they have leave and authority then we easily grant that every Pastor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture That is if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God and ask a Preacher or Bishop he hath Power to say Yea but not to say No But this is no Judicial Power but a Teaching and Witnessing act For the people are bound to disobey them if they erre and therefore bound to â—ry whether they erre or not and not to follow their judgement further then it is right and sound therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power which I prove thus Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God that Christ is not the Redeemer that Scripture is not the word of God and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church But this is false and abominable therefore the Pope hath no such Power For the consequence it is manifest supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God Christ or Scripture then men must by this Doctrine be bound to obey it and forsake God Christ and Scripture for the Pope Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity Then either such as renounce God Christ and Scripture may be saved or else God bindeth men by the Pope to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation But both these consequents are false and abominable Therefore I know they will here reply that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement and therefore being infallible he will certainly make no such false Decision To which I say 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem on either side Doth God give a man Authority to do that which he hath promised him and all others that he shal never do But he will
Papal infallibility can be proved and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity Then it seems no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word which cannot it self be known till that infallibility be known It must be Gods Grant written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility But that word or Grant written or unwritten cannot be known to be of God till we first know their Authority to judge and infallibility in judging It evidently follows therefore according to them that neither one nor the other can be known because no one of them can be known till the other be first known But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word before we know their infallibility in judging yet we cannot know the true sence of that Scripture as they confidently tell us first Well then I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility and demand his proof Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye He hath nothing to tell me but that the Church saith so And how shall I know that the Church is in the right Why because it cannot erre And how shall I know that Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle past recovery For they expresly and frequently tell us that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church and so the Popes infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known till their infallible judgement be first known What follows therefore but that neither of them can be known The true product of Popery This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause to overthrow both the cause and argument so do the Papists as much as in them lyes overthrow both Christs Doctrine and their own 3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. is from Luk. 22. Simon Simon Satan hath desired c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible Yes if you will take Bellarmines word And first he tells us that among themselves there are three several expositions given of this Text and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn Good still And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on is the right Let any impartial man peruse his reasons and make his best of them For indeed there is no reason in them But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope or of Rome or of Infallibility 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person Simon 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith and not about infallibility in judging For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith But it was in respect of his personal Faith and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him Therefore c. 2. It is expresly said to be his Faith that should not fail But his Faith is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence words be not Faith 4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon but he onely prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome foreseeing that it would shake and that he would deny him So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue 5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing Therefore he was not exempted from it And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to Therefore it was not that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations for he was not converted from such Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peters conversion from any sin but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them as if it were When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren strengthen them Nothing but the Popes infallibility or the gross fallibility of common reason could make a learned man think that this is the sence of the Text. 6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of But that is not so For if it were as it was that he should not Apostatize the same was given to them all except Judas If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church so were the rest too as well as he The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oathes from which he had need of a special conversion that God might not forsake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith 7. Two things saith Bellarmine are here obtained for Peter The one is that he himself should never lose the faith nor fall as to his faith The second is that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do Of which priviledges saith he perhaps the first did not descend to his successors but doubtless the last did But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two Faith is one thing and Cathedral determination is another Doth Christ mean both when he names but one Expresly it is onely the first priviledge that he promiseth Peter and saith not a word of the later It was his Heart and not his tongue that was the seat of faith and that Christ establisheth which is also evident by the issue for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith when he curst and swore that he knew not the man 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this priviledge that his own faith should not fail extendeth not perhaps to the Popes so that for all this their faith may fail If so 1. Then the onely priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them For it speaks of no more The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope but what it never promised to Peter 2. And if it did promise both priviledges to Peter that neither Faith nor tongue should fail how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope when he confesseth the
of the Church and decider of controversies 3. Observe also that Vincentius doth fully and purposely acknowledge the Scripture sufficiency and never once mention any Traditions as necessary to supply the defects of Scripture or as part of Gods word when Scripture is but the other part Not a word of such Traditions But onely of Tradition subordinate to Scripture finaliter for the true expounding of them Hear himself Cap. 2. Hic forsit an requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus scripturarum Canon sihique ad Omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur authoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipinut And in his recapitulation Cap. 41. Diximuâ— in superioribus hanc fuisset semper est esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem ut fidem veram duobus his modis approbent Primum divini Canonis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione Non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat sed quia verba Divina pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes varias opiniones errores que concipiant So that Scripture is sufficient ad omnia ad universa onely the Churches tradition that is interpretation is the safe way to avoid heresie for the understanding of it 4 Note also that the Catholike Church which Vincentius mentioneth is not the Romane Church any more then any other but the Tradition that he referreth us to is that which hath been taught or held ubique semper ab omnibus every where alwayes and by all 5 Note also that it is not any authoritative Determination of any person or persons whomsoever but universal consent that he referreth uâ—to 6. And it is not in lesser probable or controverted points but in those great necessary points which the Church hath wholly every where in all ages agreeed in 7. Note diligently that one of the cases he putteth is this cap 4. Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam tantum sed totam pariâ—er Ecclesiam commaculare conetur i. e. But what if any novel contagion shall not onely stain a small part of the Church but also the whole Church A presumptuous Question in the Papists sence But what saith he to it doth he say it is impossible no but Tunc item providebit ut Antiquitati inhaeteat quae prorsus jam non potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci i. e Then let him see that he stick to antiquity which cannot at all now be seduced by any fraud of novelty Here 1. he supposeth that the present Church may all erre 2. He makes the remedy to be an appeal to the ancient Church and not as the Papists to appeal in all cases to the present Church or Pope Costerus seeks by a citation out of Tertullian in his Annot. to detort both 8. Lastly note diligently that it is not in all cases that Vincentius leadeth us to the exposition of the Church and Fathers but onely as in the weighty use beforesaid so in case of the newness of errors when they first arise before they falsifie the Rules of the ancient faith let them be forbidden by the straights of time and before by the large spreading of the poison they endeavor to vitiate the volumes of our Ancestors But dilated and inveterate heresies are to be set upon this way because by the long tract of time they have had a long occasion of stealing truth that is Antiquity and other signs of truth And therefore as for all those Ancient prophanesses of schismes or heresies we must by no means convince them but by the onely authority of Scripture if there be need or avoid them as certainly already of old convicted and condemned by the General Councils of Catholike Priests They are his own words translated pag. 677. Edit Perionii pag. 87 88. Edit Colon. 1613. So that you see Vincentius supposeth error may infect all the Church and may grow old and so seem to be the Truth and in such cases onely Scripture must be pleaded against it unless also we can produce some ancient Council that hath condemned it This is the very case between us and the Papists Their heresies are old and far spread though not universal nor of utmost antiquity therefore between us and them the Scripture only must be pleaded Where there is no need of a judge by reason of its plainness we need not go to the Ancient Church where there is need of an Expositor we are content to deal with them on Vincentius grounds and to admit of that which ubique semper ab omnibus hath been held in point of faith if they will do the like And indeed this is our very Religion Will the Papists but dispute their cause with us on these terms we shall readily joyn issue with them and doubt not of a good success Of this see more in our Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol divin Canonis THe Dispute which we have hitherto managed being only against Popery in the gross and two or three branches of it onely in particular I had thought to have annexed a Brief enumeration of the particular errors of the Papists that the vulgar might observe and avoid them and therein I thought to have endeavored the true stating of the differences between us both for the avoiding of error on the other extream and also that we may take out of the Papists hands the greatest of all their advantages against us which is the false-opposed opinions and unsound Arguments of such as thus erre on the other side But perceiving how it would lengthen this work beyond the intended limits and how certainly all those that so run into extreams would fall a quarrelling with me for not stating the controversies according to their fancies I have thought best for answering all my ends at cheaper rates to give you the chief of the Popish errors in the words of Doctor Feild and to that end to tranâ—â—ribe his seventh Chapter of the third Book that so the simple Reader may have some help to inâ—orm him without a commixed means to pervert him And for those that desire to see the Protestant Doctrine solidly defended and cannot have time to read many books I know not of any one that they may more profitably and safely read to that end then the said Book of Doctor Field on the Church and especially the Appendix to the third part which is but the Defence of this very Chapter proving it in particulars that the Western Church was Protestant and not Popish even in the worst times before Luthers Reformation and that the Papists were but a seducing tyrannical party in the Church endeavoring to obtrude their errors against the mind of the generality of good men In which he hath quite broken down those pretences of Vniversality and All the Church which the Papists do so fondly boast in Dr. Feild of the
Church li. 3. Cap 7. Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed â— hold that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now urge nor that in sufficiency they now charge it with nor corruption of the Originals nor necessity of following the vulgar Translation nor the Heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of Grace or sin and two other the one of Grace the other of Sin That all those evils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as Ignorance Concupiscence Contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the Soul difficulty to do well and proneness to do evil were all natural the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come forth from God That these evils are not sinful nor had their beginnings from sin that they were the consequents of nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernatural Grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might have been created of God in the integrity of Nature without addition of Grace and in the estate of Original sin differ no otherwise but as they that never had and they that have lost rich and precious cloathing so that Original sin is but the loss of that without which natures integrity may stand That no evils are brought in by the fall but nature left to her self to feel that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of Grace bettered nature None of these errors touching the estate of mans creation were the Doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching Original Sin there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man born of Adam but that Adams personal sin is imputed onely That the propagation of sin is not general Mary being conceived without Original sin That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positive evil but privative onely and that therefore there is a third place neither Hell nor Heaven named Limbus Puerorum which is a place whereas some think they who are condâ—mned thither though they be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and all possibility of ever coming thither yet are in a state of natural happiness and do enjoy the sweet content of Eternal Life These Pelagian Heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the Doctrines of the Chuâ—ch being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian Verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they never received these parts of false Doctrine So likewise the Church wherein they lived neither know nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins which the Romanists now Teach nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giver to love God above all and to do actiâ—â—s morally good or not sinful without concurrence of special Grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of something in us positive or privative nor merit of congruence and condignity nor works of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities nor uncertainty of Grace nor seven Sacraments properly so named nor local presence nor Transubstantiation nor â—rall manducation of the body of Christ nor real sacrificing of it for the quick and the dead nor remission of sins after this Life nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of Salvation in a part of Hell hundreds of years by Divels in corporal fire out of which prayer should deliver â—hem nor that the Saints hear our Prayers â—ow or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the gross idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superstuity of Saints merits not rewardable in themselves to be disposed by the Pope for the supply of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes judgement and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depâ—sâ— Princes and dispose of their Crowns and digrâ—â—ieâ— and that whatsoever he doth he may not be broughâ— into order or deposed by authority of the whole world in a general Council Those are the errors which we condemne and our adversaries maintain and defend these we are all assured were not the Doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed though we do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing we could have peace no longer with our adversaries but by approving these impieties we had just cause to divide our selves from them or to speak more properly to suffer our selves to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather then to subscribe to so many errors and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity WHereas the Papists have little else to say to us but onely to call still for a Catalogue of Professors to prove the successive visibility of our Church we require of them first an answer to those Writings that have been extant so long on this subject especially Bishop Vsher de successione Statu Eccles and his answer to the Jesuits challenge Defended by Master Sing and Master Puttock Doctor Fields Treat of the Church especially the Appendix to the third part Simon Birkbecks Protestants evidence Doctor Whites Way to the true Church Abbot against Hill Illiricus his Catalogues testium veritatis Mornays two Treatises of the Church and the Mystery of iniquity to say nothing of that of the Mass Johan Lidii Waldens Nicol. Vignier Ecclesiast Histor. And the confessions of your own Writers Your after Pope Aenaeas Sylvius Histor Bohem. and that commonly cited passage of your inquisitor Rainnerius which I will adjoyn Rainerius contr Waldens cap 4. Inter omnes sectas que adhuc sunt fuerunt non est perniciosior Ecclesiae quam ea Leonistarum idque tribus de causis 1. Quia est diuturnior aliqui enim dicunt quod duravit a tempore Silvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum 2. Quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec secta non sit 3. Quia cum omnes aliae sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrorem inducant haec scilicet Leonistarum magna habet speciem pietatis eo