it by other Meanes which is by the Magistery of other men Faith comes by hearing that is by his Church which he hath commanded vs to heare vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes or extraordinary lights motions or rapts And so this very Providence of God in permitting some scripture to be lost or questioned for a tyme proves the necessity of a Living Guide and the no-necessity or no sole-sufficiency of scripture and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide 53. But then say you How is the Church an infallible keeper of sâ—ripture which hath suffered some bookes to be lost It is easy for vs to answer that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost we are sure the Church can and will supply that defect by the assistance which God hath promised Her as your Volkelius de vera Relig L. 6. C. 19. affirmes and endeavours to prove that by scripture alone the Church may be restored though she were supposed totally to haue fayled which conceit of his though it be but a meere chimera since it appeares by experience that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to be believed yet it demonstrates that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written But this answer cannot serue Protestants who on the one side cannot be assured that in those scriptures which were lost there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith and on the other are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture consists not in this that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes but that she be so directed as no scripture or other Meanes be lost if indeed they be necessary for salvation 54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority and Canonicallness must be answered by Protestants who receyue for Canonicall some books of which once there was some doubt neither will they pretend to restore to them authority or Canonicallness which in themselves they could never loose for what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written but only we may come to know that which we did not know or to be assured of that wherof some doubted Which yet you must not so vnderstand as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes and much less that she did deny or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning theÌ„ as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles and the Church in due tyme even by occasion of such doubt or denyall declared the Truths contrary to those Heresyes to be arricles of Faith and those books of which some doubted to be Canonicall Thus Potter Pag 216. teaches that the Apâ—â—â—â—es Creed as it was further opened and explayned in some parts by occasion if emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Conseantmople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius contains all fundamentall Points of Faith And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonicall nay degrading them from the number of articles of Faith aÌ„d putting theÌ„ among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For the church did not omit to declare in due tyme and vpon fit or necessary occasioÌ„ that they were Canonicall as the ancieÌ„t Councell of Nice of whose Creed your Church of England Art 8. saieth it ought throughly to be receaved aÌ„d believed by occasioÌ„ of the daÌ„nable heresy of Arius with whom you and your SociniaÌ„s agree declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith or put among disputable problemes aÌ„y Part of true Canonicall scripture aÌ„d therfor Cha Ma sayd truly that never aÌ„y booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall was questioÌ„ed or rejected for apocriphall either by the church or any Catholique to whom such a DefinitioÌ„ was sufficiently notifyed though Heretiks will still be doing what pride aÌ„d obstinacie may suggest In the meane tyme you will find that I haue already aÌ„swered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha Ma that never any book or syllable once defined c and of which you are pleased to say certainly it is a bold assertion but extremely false aÌ„d say Hee Cha Ma were best ruâ—b his forhead hard and say c But our answer is very obvious that the booke of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of S. James and to the Heb which you mention were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall yet that did not hinder but afterward some might be ignorant or doubt of them as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter You cite S. Gregory L 9. Morall C. 13. calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but L. 19. C. 17. which you might haue learned out of Potter who P. 259. cites the same authority as I haue set it downe This I would not haue noted if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter Potter I say makes the same objection out of S. Gregory and Cha Ma Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18. answers it at large and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did These then be the words of Charity Maintayned what you alledg out of S. Gergory is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees not Canonicall as if he would exclude them from the number of true and divine scriptures but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius or Legat at
it remaines that all his interrogations were fully answered the very foundation vpon which they stood that the Creed containes all necessary points being demolished and in particular his interrogation What tyranny is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians Seing yourselfe acknowledge that he professes the Creed to containe all necessary points of Faith not absolutely but as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresies in the other Catholick Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesius Chalcedon and Athanasius which are his owne words Pag 216. and therfor he must answer his owne demand What tyranny is it to impose any new vnnecessary matters c. Since the declaration of those Councells were long after the Apostles time and for this cause you expresly professe to forsake the Doctour in this his explication of the Creed as we haue seene hertofore 57. To your N. 69.70.71.72.73 I answer Ch. Ma. had reason to say that Potter citing the words of S. Paul Act. 20. V. 27. adds this glosse of his owne needfull for our salvation For the Apostle both in our translation and in the Protestant English Bible hath profitable not needfull and yourselfe here N. 69. grant the same And speaking in rigor that which is strictly profitable is not needfull or necessary nor that which is properly needfull is profitable as profitable and needfull are membra contradistincta as when we distinguish Meanes to some End that some are profitable others necessary and you know it is in Logick no good division wherin one of the membra dividentia includes the other and therfor your saying to Ch Ma I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoeuer is needfull for salvation is very profitable is spoken with greater confidence then truth But for our present purpose seing the Apostle Uers 20. sayth I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable and sayth not I haue withdrawen nothing that was needfull it followes that the Apostle taught not only necessary but also profitable things and thence I inferr that when he sayth V. 27. I haue not spared to declare vnto you all the counsel of God he meant not only of necessary but also of profitable points and therfore of more thē are contained in the Creed For which cause he C Ma. had reasō to take notice of this place in particular which clearly shewes out of the very text of Scripture which Potter cites his interrogations to be of no force but only to begg the question by supposing vntruly that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed To salue this you say N. 70. It is not D. Potter that beggs the Question but you that mistake it which is not here in this particular place whether all points of simple Beliefe necessary for the salvation of the primitiue Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol for that and the proofes of it follow after in the next § Pag. 223. of Dr. Potter but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to belieue now which was not so from the beginning 58. Answer Dr. Potter Pag 216.217 sayeth The Creed of the Apostles is sayd generally by the Schoolemen and Fathers to comprehend a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentall truths and to imply a full rejection of Fundamentall heresies and hath been receaved by Orthodox Christians as an absolute summarie of the Christian Faith For proofe wherof we will first argue ad hominem and teach the Mistaker how to esteeme of his Creed out of his owne Masters And then having alledged divers Catholik Writers to proue his Assertion he adds it were easy to multiply testimonies to this effect out of their late and ancient schoole Doctors if it were not tedious All agree that the Creed briefely comprehends all Fundamentall principles or rudiments of Faith that it is a distinctiue Character severing Orthodox believers from insidels and heretiks that it is a full perfect and sufficient summary of the Catholik Faith Thus he And immediatly after sayth Their judgment that is the judgment of Catholik Authors whom he alledged herein that is for the purpos of proving the Creed to containe all Fundamentall Articles seemes full of reason And his reasons he setts downe in these words immediatly following For how can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times May the Church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it And so he goes on with his interrogations and in the same context hath these words of which we speake The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation What Tyranny then is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians I pray you consider whether he doth not speake expressly of the Apostles Creed when he saith How can it be necessary for any Chrictian to haue more in this Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their time And doe not you N. 15. expressly vnderstand these words of the Doctor of the Apostles Creed as it is a full comprehension of that part of the beliefe of the Apostles which cōtaines only the necessary articles of simple Faith And consequently when the Doctour askes How can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had his demand must be How can it be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Creed containes Which evidently supposes that the Creed containes all things necessary otherwise it might be necessary to belieue some thing not contained in the Creed Besides what connexion can ther be in the Doctours words taken in your sense which will make him argue in this manner No Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed who certainly believed more then is contained in the Creed Therfor the judgment of those who teach that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points is full of reason And indeed the Doctor had no occasion at all to proue that it can not be necessary for any Christian to belieue more then the Apostles did belieue neither did Ch Ma say any such thing And why doe you N. 67. exact of C Ma an āswer to D. Potters interrogations if they proue only that no Christiā is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed which as I sayd Ch Ma never denied Will you haue him C Ma confute his owne judgment and answer those arguments which were intended only to proue his owne beliefe Thus while you will be clearing the Doctour from begging the question you make him with great paines and pompe of words make many patheticall interrogations nothing to the purpose and grant that which is the only maine point that those his interrogations proue not that all fundamentall points be contained in the Creed Chuse of these inconveniences which you please
earth Hee I say who with Arians and other old and moderne condemned Heretiques denyes Christ to be the sonne of God and consubstantiall to his Father as also his Merit and satisfaction for mankind wherby he is the Saviour of the world The like I say of his resurrection and that all men shall arise againe at the last day seing Socinians teach as I sayd aboue that we shall have bodyes in Heaven in nature substaÌ„ce and essence different from our bodyes on earth Against whom these words of S. Iohn Chrisostome Hom 65. in Ioannem post medium are very effectuall as they were against some others who sayd Corpora non resurgent our bodyes shall not rise againe Nonne audiunt Paulum c Do they not heare S. Paule saying For this corruptible must do on incorruption 1. Cor 15.53 Neither can he meane the soule seing it is not corrupted and Resurrection must belong to that which is dead which was the body only And Serm de Ascensione Domini To 3. Let vs consider who he is 〈◊〉 whom it was sayd sit on my right hand what nature that is to whom God sayd be partaker of my seate It is that nature which heard thou art earth and shald returne to â—arth And Learne who ascended and what nature was elevated For I willingly stay in this subject that by consideration of mankind we may with all admiration learne the divine clemency which hath bestowed so great honour and glory on our nature which this day is exalted above all things This day Angels behold our nature shining with immortall glory in the divine Throne And S. Austine serm 3. de Ascensione saith to the same purpose an earthly body is seated aboue the highest Heaven bones ere while shut vp in a narrow grave are placed in the company of Angels a mortall nature is placed in the bosome of immortality And in the same place he sayth If our saviour did not rise againe in our body he gave nothing to our condition by rising againe Whosoever sayes this doth not vnderstand the reason of the flesh which he assumed but confounds the order and evacuates the profit therof I acnowledge to be myne that which fell that that may be myne which rose I acknowledg that to be myne which lay in the grave that that may be myne which ascended into Heauen From this Secinian Heresy it also followes that indeed they deny his true Ascension since they give him and vs not his and our nature but another essentially different But indeed is the Resurrection of the dead so cleare in scripture for the sense without any help of Gods Church How then doth Dr. Potter Pag. 122. say in behalf of Hookers and M. Mortons opinion A learned man was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our Bodyes Was he a learned man Then surely he vnderstood the Grammaticall signification of the words and yet he erred in the sense as also many others did who denyed Resurrection as Basilidiani Saturniani Carpocratiani Valentiniani Severiani Hieracitae and others which shewes the necessity of a living judg beside the letter or bare word of scripture Which appeares also by the other example which you alledg as cleare That They which belieue and repent shal be saved That they which do not belieue or repent shal be damned For how is this cleare for the sense of the words if it be not cleare what that Faith and Repentance is without which none can be saved And yet you teach a Faith and a repentance wholy different from that which hitherto both Catholikes and ProtestaÌ„ts haue believed and taught as also Calvinists tell vs of a Faith justifying after a new fashion different both from Catholikes and from Socinians and yet what is more necessary to salvation than true Faith and repentance 34. Neither are you more fortunate in your example that it is clearly against Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to salvation Yea this instance makes against your self and proves the necessity of a living judg For the first determination concerning that poynt was made in the Councell of the Apostles Act. 15. V. 28. and the Scripture only relates what their definition was and so this proves only that the voyce of the Church or Councels may be clear both for the words and sense Or that it may be declared by the Church of succeding ages if it grow in tyme to be obscure which happens in this very Councell For though no doubt but Christians of that tyme vnderstood fully the meaning of the Councell by the declaration of the Apostles yet the contents therof were afterward to be declared to all posterity by the Church how they were to be vnderstood and practised The Councell sayd Act. 15. V. 28. 29. It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burden vpon you than these necessary things that you abstayne from the things immolated to Idols and bloud and that which is strangled Doth not this rather seeme contrary than clearly in favour of your affirmation that it is cleare in Scripture that the Mosaicall Law is not necessary For one part and practise and Law obliging the Iewes was to abstaine from bloud and that which is strangled though I grant it was also commanded before but not to last always as the practise of Christs Church declareth and yet in the councell it is sayd to be necessary And for the other point that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols S. Paule teaches that abstracting from an erroneous conscience it is not necessary to abstayne from them and yet in that Councell it is injoyned as a thing necessary How then is this poynt so cleare if we looke on scripture alone without reference to any declaration or practise of Gods church 35. Besides for Circumcision which as the Apostle sayth brings with it an obligation to obserue the whole Mosaicall Law which observation is you say clearly not necessary although if we take some words or text of Scripture alone without any further reflection or consideration it may seeme cleare that it is not only not necessary but hurtfull S. Paule saying Gal. 5.2 If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing yet if we also call to mynd the fact of the same Apostle Act 16. V. 3 saying taking him he circumcided him Timothy that other text If you be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing which seemed cleare and vniversall will seeme difficult and to be vnderstood with some explication or restraint For who will imagine that S. Paule would be author of that wherby Timothy should be deprived of all the good he could expect from the Sauiour of the world And the difficulty wil be increased if we add that S. Paule caused Timothy to be circumcised propter Iudaeos c. For the Iewes who were in those places for they knew all of them that his father was
given to his Church the Gift of interpretation and I suppose Protestants will not say that the spirit of God the Grace of God and the Gift of interpretation given by God is necessary only for things not necessary and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces which yet we might doe if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say Apolog. part 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. That which is questioned is whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation are so very plaine that the most vnlearned believers by the reading therof may be instructed to piety and heretiques though not learned may clearly enough be confuted by them aÌ„d he holds the affirmatiue part And so ProtestaÌ„ts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace they must yeald that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner 54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person as we gather from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor 12. To one is giueÌ„ by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledg to another interpretation of languages to another prophecy c which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all in so much as Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Fol 63. teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all no more then is the gift of healing and miracles aÌ„d therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church not in any private person Therfor the Scripture is not so evident that we can be sure of the meaning therof by the interpretation of any but of the Church 55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth in this manner Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn Ioan 1 Cap 4. V. 1. warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit before they can beleeue it which meanes with them must be only Scripture and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture before they can make vse of that spirit by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit and so this spirit shal be necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit Therfore this spirit is necessary and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit and Scripture necessary and not necesssary for trying this spirit which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture And in a word the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit and the finall conclusion will be that the same thing must depend on it selfe the spirit on spirit Scripture on Scripture and so both of them must exist both before and after themselves Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle except by having recourse to Gods visible Church whose spirit needs no triall of men since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit by obliging all to obey Her voyce and to receyue even Scripture it self from Her Authority and Testimony 56. Ninthly I now vrge more in particular that which heretofore I touched in generall that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture declaring any command that we must haue recourse to Scripture alone for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith and yet if the End which is Faith be necessary the only Meanes that is Scripture to attayne that End must also be necessary nor can they produce any evident Text proving that from Scripture alone we can learne all points necessary to be believed 57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion wil be to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg and to shew how little they make to their purpose They produce these words Deut 4. V. 2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you Search the Scriptures Ioan 5.39 these things are written that yee may beleeue Ioan 20.31 And that of the Beraeans dayly searching the scriptures Act 17. V. 11. we haue the Propheticall word more sure 2. Pet. 1.19 All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke 2. Timoth 3.16 58. Now these Texts are so farr from proving evidently what is intended that it is evident that neither these nor any other can be alledged to proue that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone The reason is because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church as Moyses the Prophets and writers of Canocall scripture nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles and preachers of the Gospell Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone Nay out of this ground I further infer that seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides they had no obligation at all to consult scripture and much less scripture alone and if they had no such obligation no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme that they were so obliged and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling Pag 116. N. 159. that God requires of vs vnder payne of danatioÌ„ only to belieue the verityes therin in scripture contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are coÌ„taynâ—d By which assertion he doth not only disoblige meÌ„ from having recourse to scripture but also froÌ„ believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof caÌ„ be learned by other meanes as they might while those visible guides were living Therfor no text caÌ„ be brought to proue that men were or are obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number 59. But beside this there is another fundamentall
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
delivered by word or writing and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such which sufficiency of proposition is required in all articles of Faith fundamentall or not fundamentall before one can be obliged to belieue them 27 Since then according to your Doctrine we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God yea and may reject it It remaines true then as I sayd in the last Chapter Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith although we should falsly suppose that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed For what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith to read any Point in that Booke which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue Let vs now come to another errour of yours 28. Your second errour I find Pag. 144. N. 31. where you write thus If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they dâ—livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstaÌ„ding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both h o and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes And Pag. 145. N. 33. you say the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures 29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine and receyved as Divine Truth 1. It must be delivered constantly 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles and these conditions you require for every part therof For you say the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part and then you add expressly this limitation I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine Divine Truth and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills did frame that opinyon out of some apprehended Revelation for example In viam gentium ne abieritis Matth 10.5 Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not or Matth 15.24 I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel or some other and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth yet they were deceyved in that Poynt because it wanted the other conditions of constancy and Attestation of Divine Miracles and consequently your doctrine must be that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost might faile in some of them and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion 30. If this be so what certainty can we now haue that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation Ephes 2.20 haue not erred in writing as then they erred in speaking And in particular whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which Pag 137. N. 21. You cite out of S. Matth 29.19 Goe and teach all Nations And so at this present we cannot be certaine whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching or in their second of preaching the Gospell to Gentils If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost they could erre in neither without it in both and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted and how can you be certaine that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre You grant Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing Seing therfor you teach that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing which God required them to belieue and commanded them to practise according to your owne saying we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing What the Apostles spoke or preached they might haue written it is your owne saying Pag 54. N. 7. Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written neither had it bene more or less true or false by being committed to writing than if it had bene only spoken or preached and so if they could erre in speaking we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe some errour proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice or some other cause as you speake Pag 137. N. 21. This I may confirme by what you say to Ch Ma Pag 84.86 D. Fields words I confess are somwhat more pressing and if he had bene infallible and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Booke In which words I note that although D. Field had bene infallible yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing for you speake of what he hath written in his Book and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible and actually to haue erred as you say they did why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings 31. If you answer that it belongs to Gods providence not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing and conveyed to posterity I reply by this very Reason it is cleare that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers especially since you pretend that this errour of theirs is
vnderstand and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such 4. 4. To this Argument you answer Pag 92. N. 104. saying The Scripture is sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that haue vnderstanding whether they be learned or vnlearned And my reason herof is convincing and Demonstratiue because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed 5. This Answer is nothing to your purpose vnlesse you add That nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed in Scripture and that being added it is a meere begging of the Question taking that for a Proofe which is the thing controverted betweene vs so farr is your Reason from being convincing and demonstratiue You should haue vsed a direct contrary forme of Argument and sayd The Scripture is not cleare in poynts of greatest moment even to the learned as experience teaches and I proved hertofore at larg Therfor God hath not fayled to provide vs of some Judg and rule intelligible to all which is his Visible Church on earth 6. But say you Pag. 93. N. 106. The Evangelists did not write only for the learned but for all men And therfor vnless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to haue been willfully wanting to their owne desire and purpose we must conceiue that they intended to speake plaine even to the capacity of the simplest at least touching all things necâ—ssary to be published by them and believed by vs. 7. Answer 1. In this whole Controversy whether the Scripture alone be a Rule of Faith without the Church you goe vpon humane and topicall discourses wheras if all matters of Faith are to be tryed by Scripture alone your Arguments should be taken from it alone For by humane Reason we cannot be assured of Gods voluntary Decree whether or no he will haue vs regulated by Scripture alone 2. To make your discourses haue any shew of proofe you must still begg the Question and suppose that there is no meanes left for vs to learne matters of Faith except the Scripture and therfor you say the Holy Ghost and the Evangelists had bene wilfully wanting to their owne desire and purpose vnless they had written to the capacity of the simplest at least all things necessary to be published by theÌ„ aÌ„d believed by vs which supposes all things necessary must needs be written and that no such poynt could be delivered by the Church though not expressed in Scripture which is manifestly false seing the Evangelists wrote while the Apostles were aliue and could deliver by word of mouth not only some but all necessary or profitable Articles of Faith as Christians were taught for those yeares before which no Scripture of the New Testament was written and therfor I may turne the Argument vpon yourself and say At that tyme there was no necessity that the Gospells should be written to all yea or to any and therfor supposing the writing of them you cannot suppose that they were plaine even to the capacity of the simplest If writing were so necessary for all then enters your owne Argument against yourself How the Holy Ghost and the Evangelists were not wanting to their duty in differring so long to write in so much as S. Johns Gospell was not written many yeares after our Saviours Ascention that is about the yeare 99. which makes it cleare that writing was not so necessary I do not deny but when they wrote they wrote for all but not as if all must of themselves be able to vnderstand them without the helpe of the Church and in this sense we may say they rather wrote for all than to all otherwise all must be obliged to learne to read yea and to be learned and be able to judg of languages translations c. seing from Scripture alone they must learne all Points necessary to salvation Do not you teach that if one should belieue all the Mysteryes of Christian Religion though he should not belieue but even reject Scripture yet he may be saved Therfor much more one may be saved though he himself vnderstand no Scripture in case he haue some other to declare it Yea even the most learned must finally not rely vpon their owne abilityes or evidence of Scripture but vpon the infallible Voice and Interpretation of the Church as we haue proved Not only the Gospells but all Scripture was written for all that is for the good of all one way or other and yet I hope you will not say it is necessary that all must by themselves vnderstand all Scripture Do you thinke in good earnest that none is so vnlearned as not to vnderstand all the foure Gospells And yet you say they did not write only for the learned but for all men You will say at least they must be plaine to all touching all things necessary to be believed Yes if first you take for true and granted that which you know we deny that all things necessary are contayned in Scripture alone or that we can learne them by no other meanes than by Scripture itself And this your Limitation at least insinuates that you cannot affirme the Gospells to be cleare in all Points and yet as I sayd and as you say the Evangelists did not write only for the learned but for all men 8. You say This writing the Gospells was one especiall meanes of the preaching of the Gospell which was commanded to be preached not only to learned men but to all men 9. Answer Preaching and writing are different things and we are not wont to say that men preach by writing or write by preaching yet if you meane only that writing the Scripture is one especiall meanes for divulging or publishing the Gospell I grant it and acknowledg an infinite obligation to God for having vouchsafed to inspire men for writing the Holy Scripture but I deny that writing was a necessary meanes of preaching the Gospell which the Apostles themselves declared in fact who instantly after the receiving of the Holy Ghost set themselves to preach but not to write and they who wrote were but few and those few performed it not as a thing necessary or enjoined but only vpon incident occasions Therfor wher you make this Argument writing was one especiall meanes of the preaching of the Gospell and therfor must be plaine even to the capacity of the simplest you should say the contrary Writing was no necessary meanes of the preaching the Gospell and therfor there is no necessity that it be plaine to all Yourself say Pag 35. N. 7. Plaine sense will teach every man that the necessity of the meanes must alwayes be measured by and can never exceed the necessity of the end As if eating be necessary only that I may liue then certainly if I haue no necessity to liue I haue no neceâ—sity to eate If I haue no need to be at London I haue no need of a horse to carry me
yeild sufficient cause to forsake her communion which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not erre Fundamentally and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion by reason of her errours We must therfore conclude that seing there can be no just cause to depart from the communion of the Church and yet that there might be just cause to do so if she were subject to corruption or errour we must absolutely belieue her to be infallible and that they who teach the contrary and vpon that pretence forsake her communion are guilty of Schisme and heresy 24. And this is a fit place to put you in mynd of your doctrine that the Apostles after the receaving of the holy Ghost and the whole Church with them erred in a point clearly revealed and commanded by our Saviour Christ about preaching the Gospells to gentils For this false doctrine supposed I aske whether or no it had been necessary or lawfull to leaue the communion of that most primitiue Church If it were not lawfull then errours even in Faith affoard not a just cause to forsake a Church If you say it was lawfull to forsake the Apostles and the whole Church of their tyme you blaspheme And yet if the Apostles and the whole primitiue Church did erre they that is all Christians might and ought to haue been forsaken and therfore if it were but to avoide this gross absurdity we must say that neither the Church of that nor of consequent ages could erre 25. Thus much be sayd in the first way That considering things as they are in themselves the Church might be forsaken if she could erre and therfore because it is most certaine that she can never be forsaken we must firmely belieue that she cannot erre though indeed I must add that if she could erre she might and might not be forsaken it being no strang thing that vpon a false supposition contradictoryes may follow wherof more herafter 25. Now let vs see what may be sayd in the second way or consideration that is in order to Protestants and their grounds or ad hominem though I must confess this to be a nice and difficult vndertaking by reason of their inconstancy saying and vnsaying as they are forced by different or contrary occasions which make them doe as they can not what they should and never hold constantly what they ought 27. First then we suppose that the Church out of which Luther departed was a true Church for substance whether it were the Roman or any other Church Otherwise we must say that Christ had no true Church on earth which you Potter and all chiefest Protestants deny and expressly teach that alwayes there hath been is and ever shal be such a Church as we haue seene aboue In so much as D. Lawd Pag 141. saieth All Divines Ancient and Moderne Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostasy And Pag 142. he saieth that otherwise falshood in the very Article of the Creed that the Church is Holy may be the subject of the Catholike Faith which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme 28. Secondly Hence it followes that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point every one wherof vtterly destroyes the Church but that her falsly supposed errours were only in Points not Fundamentall or not absolutely necessary to salvation 29. Thirdly That if such errours in Points not Fundamentall do not exclude salvation men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths it being impossible that one belieue an errour and also the truth contrary to that errour and therfore if the errour be not destructiue of salvation it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary therto 30. Fourthly If therfore we can shew that according to Protestants errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not salvation it will follow of it selfe that in their grounds they might and ought to haue remayned in the externall communion of the visible Church notwithstanding such errours since by so doing they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation nor done any thing incompatible therwith For which we take your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient And say I how can it be necessary if one may be saved without it Let vs now see what Protestants hold in this matter 31. I grant that somtyme in words they will seeme to teach that it is necessary to belieue whatsoever is revealed by God if it be sufficiently proposed But if we respect their deeds and consider other grounds of their Doctrine it will appeare that they must hold the contrary ād that in express words they somtyme actually declare so much Neither ought this to seeme any strang thing since Heretiks must say and vnsay to helpe a bad cause as well as their witts will serue them In which respect I could never much approue the great paines which some Catholike Divines imploy to proue that Heretiks hold this or that because somtyme they deliver expressions contrary to that of which it is disputed whether or no it was their Opinion For all that can be inferred from such their different sayings is not that they held determinately this and not that but only that indeed they contradicted and by Gods just judgment destroyed themselves 32. Well then that it is necessary to beleeue whatsoever is revealed by God and sufficiently propounded Potter Pag 245. affirmes in these words It seemes Fundamentall to the Faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and belieue all such Points of Faith as wherof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently convinced doth oppose is obstinate an Hereticke and finally such a one as excludes himselfe out of Heaven wherinto no willfull sinner can enter And Pag 250. It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And herupon Chillingworth Pag 11. speaks to Charity Maintayned in this manner It amazed me to heare you say that he Dr. Potter declines this question and never tells you whether or no there be any other Points of Faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denyed and disbelieved He tells you plainly there are none such Againe it is almost as strang to mee why you should say this was the only thing in question whether a man may deny or disbelieue any Point of Faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth revealed by God Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
errour not be damnable yea even though it were damnable and fundamentall which is to be noted because It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles The like you may say of Scripture it selfe that it might erre and yet that it could not containe any damnable errour because according to Protestants It is nothing but opposing the Scripture that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture which consequences are absurd and therfore as you would answer by denying the supposition that the Apostles can teach or Scripture can containe any errour so you know we absolutly deny your supposition that the Church can erre in matters of Faith which if we did grant we would not be so foolish as to beliefe that Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church makes an errour damnable but contrarily we would affirme that precisily to oppose the Churches Doctrine that supposition being once made could never be Heresy or a damnable errour And therfore we speake very consequently in First believing that the Church cannot erre and then in avouching that every errour repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church is heresy The Motto in the frontispice of your Booke taken out of Jsaac Casaubon in Epist ad Card Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ sayth Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendaue vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit Obserue that he speakes of things absolutely necessary to salvation and then I say if the Church be subject to errour how can we be sure that Her Deductions from Scripture are necessary or only probable true or false though to her they may seeme true and necessary You say it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itselfe and do not reflect by this vety saying yourselfe must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth For if she may erre in some Points and believe aright in others those errours may be opposite to some truth which she believes though she do not marke that opposition You say Pag 215. N. 46. no mans errours can be confuted who togeather with his errour doth not belieue 〈◊〉 grant some true Principle that contradicts his errour If then the Churches errours may be confuted as you will suppose they may she must belieue some truth that contradicts her errour and therefore if it be impossible that the Church can be opposite to herselfe as you say it is impossible you must grant that she cannot belieue or teach any errour and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herselfe because truth cannot possibly be opposite to truth 10. In the same N. 4. I must touch in a word that you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 19. some may for a tyme haue invincible Ignorance even of some Fundamentall Article of Faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such Ignorance or errour But you cite them thus Ignorance may excuse errours even in Fundamentall Articles of Faith omitting that necessary limitation for a tyme without which restriction the words sound as if absolvtely a man may liue and dy with invincible ignorance of Fundamentall Articles or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation and so want meanes sufficient to besaved without any fault of his which is not true For if he cooperate with Gods holy Grace they shall be degrees advance to the beliefe of all necessary Points though for a tyme they were ignorant of them And here I reflect that if a Protestant erre in or be invincibly ignorant for a tyme fo some fundamentall Point sufficiently proposed and believed by other Protestants they differ in the beliefe of fundamentall Points and the ignorant party sins not damnably and yet they sin damnably who disbelieue any Point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God though otherwise it be not fundamentall of it selfe and therfore it is cleare that in matters of Divine Faith consideration is chiefly to be had of the formall and not of the materiall object 11. In your N. 7. you say God hath left meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined Which concession is as much as we desire For no man dare say that God hath given any meanes only for superfluous vses or occasions and therfore seing he hath left meanes for deciding all Controversyes necessary to be determined we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdome imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any Since then as I sayd God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes he will not faile to replenish her with Wisdome to discerne what be the occasions wherin they ought to be determined according to the exigence of particular circumstances Thus the Apostles called a Councell vpon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moyses and the first foure Generall Councells which commonly Protestants pretend to receiue were gathered vpon severall occasions of emergent Heresyes The Scripture it selfe was not written all at once but as occasion did require and the same Holy Spirit which assisted Canonicall Writers in writing did appoint to them the tymes and occasions for which their writings would be most seasonable yet after they were once written it was necessary to belieue them as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Councell registred Act 15. and other Generall Councells and commands of the Church If Controversyes rise to such a height that there is periculum in mora danger in delaying to determine them either for avoiding insufferable breach of Charity and Schisme or corruptions in manners or invalidity of Sacraments which cannot be otherwise prevented If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent If errour be like to prevaile vnlesse it be condemned if new Heresyes be in danger to take roote if they be not crushed with speede if these or any other causes require the Decision of Controversyes the Holy Ghost will effectually inspire and direct his Church to apply a convenient remedy according to the Condition of the matter Neither ought it to seeme strang that somthing may grow to be necessary one tyme which was not necessary at another and in the meane tyme men may be saved by an humble preparation of mynd to belieue and obey whatsoever the Church shall in good tyme determine or command And by the way out of this discourse we may inferr that Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes in regard that such a Rule or judge must serue for all emergent occasions and Scripture being always the same cannot be applyed sutably to all new different circumstances as I haue often saied 12. You say If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane tyme
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qûae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot
Potter to proue that the Church cannot erre against any Fundamentall Truth Which limitation I haue confuted already and joyntly your first Answer Your Second and Third are directly against the Doctor who Pag 151. teaches that the Promises which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance are intended to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended only to Points Fundamentall And then he alledges the saied text Joan 16.13 And Chap 41.61 adding that Though that Promise was direstly and primarily made to the Apostles yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now if the Church cannot erre fundamentally she is taught by the holy Ghost not only sufficiently but effectually And if those Promises were made to the Apostles not only primarily as Potter affirmes but to them only as you say how could the Doctor proue by them the Infallibility of the Church for all Fundamentalls Can a Text of Scripture proue that to which it nothing belongs As well by this Text interpreted as you doe he might haue proved you or himself or any other infallible in Fundamentall Points So that now I must defend the Doctor against Mr. Chill who among all English Protestants was picked out as a fit champion to maintayne the cause of Protestants and defend Potters Booke You are greatly mistaken and offend against the knowen Rule which Logicians give for Division while you say one may be taught only sufficiently and not irresistibly as if these were adequately the membra dividentia of being taught whereas one may be taught effectually and neither sufficiently only nor yet irresistibly as hath bene declared more than once Do not yourself tell vs heere that the saied Promises were made to the Apostles only Who I hope you will say were taught effectually and not sufficiently only Otherwise we cannot be sure but that de facto they deviated from the direction of the Holy Ghost and so we can haue no certainty that their writings are infallible Or if the doctrine of freewill which you Socinians also defend can consist with the infallibility of the Apostles how can it be inconsistent with freewill in the Church You say The word in the Originall is hodegesei which signifyes to be a guide and director only not to compell or necessitate But what is this to any purpose against vs who teach nothing against Freewill by our Doctrine of the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost And yet I must say that you vse fraude by writing so as if the word did signify a guide or director only with exclusion of being necessitated whereas the Greeke word is verified whether one be a guide or director resistibly or irresistibly For in both cases he is a guide and so Cornelius à Lapide interprets it ducet rectâ viâ ad virtutem quasi dux viae which one may doe either by leading and leaving one to his liberty to follow or by forcing him to followe his guidance and so the places which you alledg out of Scripture of men that had eyes to see and would not see are to no purpose except to ingage you to answer them in case of the Apostles whom I suppose you will not deny to haue bene secured from errour both sufficiently and effectually Yea you take much vnprofitable paines to proue that the saied Texts were by our Saviour meant only of the Apostles by reason of circumstances which appropriate them to his Disciples 80. But Dr. Potter hath told you that Though that promise directly and primarily was made to the Apostles yet it was made to them in behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church vniversall For we may consider in the Apostles a double capacity either as they are private and particular Persons or as they respect and represent or beare the place of the Church and for her good receiue some Power or priviledg and not meerely with relation to their owne persons And therefore although some words in the places which you alledge be referred to the Apostles only yet it does not follow that all must be restrained to them Otherwise you will destroy the whole Church of Christ and all Christianity Nothing is more necessary in Christian Religion than Preaching to all Nations and Baptizing which our Saviour injoyned Matth. 28. Mark 16. Luke 24. yet by your manner of arguing it may be proved that they concerned the Apostles only For it is saied Mark 16.14 Last he appeared to those Eleven as they sate at the table and he exprobrated their incrudelity and hardness of hart because they did not belieue them that had seene him risen againe And N. 15.16 he saied to them Going into the world preach the Ghospell to all Creatures He that believes and is baptized shall be saved Heere you see that although some circumstances be proper to the Apostles as sitting at table and incrudelity yet it does not follow that all must concerne them only as that preaching and baptizing belongs to the whole Church I imagine you will not deny In the same manner Matth. 28. N. 16.17.18.19.20 divers things are specified which belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee adoring doubting and our Saviours speaking to them and yet his command Going teach ye all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost belongs to the whole Church The like Argument may be taken out of S. Luke Cap. 24. N. 44.45.46.47.48.49 where some thing is personall to the Apostles and we must not say that pennance to be preached in his name and remission of sinnes vnto all Nations as is sayd N. 47. belonged to the Apostles only though it be expresly saied beginning from Hierusalem which seemes proper to the Persons of the Apostles and yet Preaching Pennance a thing common to the whole Church is set downe in the same verse with beginning from Hierusalem which was personall to the Apostles Thus Joan. 20. Some particulars are spoken and done to the Apostles only as N. 21. He saied to them againe Peace be to you and N. 22. He breathed vpon them and yet N. 23. he gives them Power to forgiue sinnes which Power did not cease with the Death of the Apostles These instances shew that you must answer your owne Objections and will force you to confess that it is no good way of arguing that all things in the Texts which Ch. Ma and Dr. Potter alledg out of S. John for the infallibility of the Church must be appropriated to the Apostles for the substance because some circumstances concerne them alone and that we must prudently distinguish betwene those two kinds of things as certainly not to be led into any errour against Faith is most necessary for the Church which God hath appointed for Teacher of all Christians and Judge of controversies And that the Apostles may be and are sometyme considered as publike persons and with relation to the Church
other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the work of the Ministery vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Vntill we meete all into the vnity of Faith and knowledg of the Sonne of God into a perfect mā into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ That now we be not children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickednes of men in craftines to the circumvention of Errour Out of which words it appeares that God hath left to his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of Saynts which comprises the whole space of this world vntill all be brought to the vnity of Faith which is necessary not only for the tymes of the Apostles but also afterward and in such manner as that we be not wavering but haue some firme infallible Ground on which to relie in matters of Faith 94. To this place you answer that He gaue is not to be vnderstood He promised that he would giue vnto the worlds end but that not the infallibility of any Church but Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists c which Christ gaue vpon his Ascention were designed by him for the compassing all these excellent purposes by their preaching while they lived and by their writings for ever 95. But this interpretation and restriction of yours is not only repugnant to the Text itself but against all Protestants and I may saie against all Christians of whom not any deny that our Saviour promised to giue Pastors Doctors Preachers Ministers c to the worlds end if not for contributing infallibility to the Church at least for other good and necessary purposes and effects as teaching preaching governing enacting Lawes inflicting Censures punishing administring Sacraments c Calvin Instit Lib. 4. Cap 1. N. 5. proves this at large out of this same Text of S. Paul Your Socinian Brother Volkelius de vera Relig Lib 6. Cap 5. cites even this place and sayeth Remansit Doctorum Pastorumue officium nec non alia quaedam The same is the doctrine of other learned Protestants as I haue set downe heretofore in particular out of Brereley Tract 2. Cap 2. Sect 1. In so much as Doctor Saravia in defens Tract de diversis Ministrorum gradibus Pag 10. Professes to wonder with amazement that any Question should be made thereof And who are you to oppose yourself against all other and limit He gaue tothe tyme of the Apostles Is any thing more common amongst Protestants than that Preaching of the word and Administration of Sacraments and consequently Preachers and Ministers of Sacraments are essentiall to the true Church 96. You object that by he gaue to vnderstand he promised that he would giue to the worlds end is an interpretation of which you say to Charity Maintayned What reason haue you for this conceypt Can you shew that the word edoke hath this signification in other places and that it must haue it in this place Or will not this interpretation driue you presently to this blasphemous absurdity that God hath not performed his promise Vnless you will say which for shame I think you will not that you haue now and in all ages since Christ haue had Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists For as for Pastors and Doctors alone they will not serue the turne For if God promised to giue all these then you must say he hath given all or els that he hath broken his promise Neither may you pretend that the Pastors and the Doctors were the same with the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you haue all For it is apparent that by these names are denoted seuerall Orders of men clearely distinguished and diversifyed by the Originall Text but much more plainly by your owne Translations for so you read it some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors And yet more plainly in the paralell place 1. Cor 12. to which we are referred by your vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you 97. Answer this which you are pleased to stile a conceypt is the conceypt of all Protestants as I haue shewed That the word dedit hath the signification of a Promise in other places will appeare to any that can but read the Concordance of the Bible as Joan Epist 1. Cap 5. N. 11. Dedit nobis vitam aeternam which word dedit saieth Cornelius à Lapide vpon this place significat firmitatem certtudinem Promissionis divinae Quod scilicet ita certi simus de vita aeterna si in Fide obedientia Christi perseveremus perinde ac si actu ea nobis data esset eamque reipsa possideremus And S. Austine in Psalmo 60. N. 6. vpon these words Dedisti haereditatem timentibus nomen tuum saieth Perseveremus in timore nominis Dei aeternus Pater non nos fallit where it is cleare the word dedisti signifyes a Promise of things as Bellarmine also explicates the same dedisti by firmiter promisisti S. John C. 10. V. 28. saieth Ego vitam aeternam do eis where Cornelius a Lapide saieth Do ijs quia nimirum promitto eis vitam aeternam And so we see that Dedit Apostolos c expresses the certainty of Gods Promise more thā if he had expressly saied I will giue But to what purpose should I say more seing there can be no more plaine signification of dedit than appointed or constituted for his Church Apostles c as appeares by the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter from the beginning which was to exhort Christians to Charity and keeping the vnity of Spirit in the bond of peace as one body ād one Spirit which exhortatiō as it is was directed to the Church of all ages so the meanes to performe it must extend to the worlds end and this meanes S. Paul declares to be the Authority and offices of Apostles Pastors c to the consummation of Saints and meeting in vnity of Faith And the same intention of the Apostle appeares in that which you call the pararell place 1. Cor 12. where that as he saied V. 24. there might be no Schisme in the Body he shewes that every one ought to be content with his owne degree seing God will haue it so that in his Church there should be different Degrees functions and Offices and then Vers 27. specifies Apostles Prophets c All which declares that he spoke of the Church for ever to the worlds end as Vnity is ever necessary against Division and Schisme 98. And now who is found guilty of blasphemous absurdity We haue heard your Volkelius say Remansit Pastorum Doctorumque officium nec non alia quaedam and the same is the Doctrine of other Protestants How then hath God performed his Promise if for the performance therof it be
advice of humility it being time enough for them to know and reflect that S. Peter was their Head by that expresse future declaration of our Saviour Joan 21. 38. Thirdly You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest because the Scripture sayth God hath appointed first Apostles secondly Prophets but sayth not God hath appointed First Peter then the rest of the Apostles which to speake truth is a childish reason it being cleare that the Scripture in that place doth not compare the Apostles among themselves but with other degrees in the Church as Prophets Doctours c. Otherwise you might proue that one Magistrate can not be subordinate and subject to another if one for example should say the commonwealth consists of Magistrates and people because forsooth in that division you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate aboue another 39 Fourthly you say S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles and if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles it was a wonder that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself as that mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour But I beseech you can you belieue that S. Paul would say of himself that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles absolutely and in all things He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners and laments that he had bene a persecutor of Christians and will you needs vnderstand him to say that in such respects he was not inferiour to the other Apostles who were innocent of those things He was an Apostle as the others were and that is all you can vnderstand by his words and all that makes just nothing to the purpose But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour No more doth he giue any title to S. James though he were Bishop of Hierusalem which surely deserves some honour if the simplicity of those blessed tymes had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles Yourself say heere S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not haue supreme Authority over them and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first in order and honour how then will your answer your owne objection that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him without any title of honour seing particular honour was due to him even by our Saviours command For from what other cause could it proceede But shall I disclose to you a mystery on which it seemes you do not reflect Our Saviour whose words are operatiue and deeds by calling S. Peter Cephas or a Rock had also made him such and saied Tues Petrus Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church so that to name Peter is to call him the Foundation and head of the Church and all Christians and with what greater title of honour could any body mention any Creature we may therefore say of S. Peter as S. Ambrose saieth of the title of Martyr De Uirginibus Lib. 1. Quot homines tot praecones qui Martyrem praedidicant dum loquuntnr To name one a martyr is a title of honour and so it is to name Peter for the foresaied Reason 40. You conclude Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more fooleries say I not probabilities that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine Right Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church vniversall Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be the foundation of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 41. Answer If you suppose as for the present you doe that S. Peter by our Saviours institution and consequently by divine right was Head of the Apostles you should not say what incongruity is there but what incongruity is there not if we say that the Bishop of Rome might succeed S. Peter only in the Government of that particular Church For what can be more incongruous and foolish than to imagine that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles and the whole Church only for his life time when there was no need and as we may saie litle vse thereof seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians and Power to preach the Gospell through the whole world and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter must haue relation to future Ages after the death of the Apostles and if it must still reside in some in whom can you imagine it to be seated except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter to remaine in his Successors appeares by his words which I haue pondered aboue as also because he speakes of the Sea or Chaire of Rome as of the Rule whereby to judg of heresies and Schismes not only for the tyme of S. Peter but for ever and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only and saith Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c and so goes on till his owne ayme And I would gladly know by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church was so particular and personall to him that it ceased with his person Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith with your congruities or incongruities With your Socinian topicall humane vaine discourses What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S Peter was living I will not examine heere whether or in what manner Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before S. Peters death wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth they were not Romanae sedis episcopi but only Coadjutores I beseech you remember what you saied N. 98. and 99. interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus that in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop and certainly it is no consequence The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome and supplying
which therfore are in themselves deadlie sinnes Some grant inherent Justice or sanctity not infused by God but acquired by the naturall forces of mans Freewill But Catholiques hold the meane and acknowledg true inherent Justice and sanctitie infused by the Holy Ghost not acquired by any acts of ours They maintayne Actions of piety proceeding from our will assisted by grace or from grace with the cooperation of our will and so they are morall and free as proceeding from our will and yet supernaturall pious and meritorious because they are dignifyed and produced by grace Thus S. Bernard lib. de Gratia saith elegantly Liberum arâ—itrium nos faâ—it volentes gratia beneuolos ex ipso nobis est velle ex ipsà honum velle From our Freedome proceeds that we vvill from Grace that vve vvill vvhat is good VI. To alledge for the necessity of grace Fathers and Councells were as easie as it is both needlesse none being ignorant of what the Fathers haue written and Councells defined against Pelagius and hîs associates and fruitlesse in regard that such men despise all Authority except that of Scripture which alone they pretend to follow Only I thought fit to set downe what the sacred generall Councell of Trent hath defined in this matter of Grace not to proue the truth of our Assertions since our Aduersaries reject it but to lay open the falshood of the frequent calumnies which Protestants are wont to lay vpon vs as if we hoped to be saued by our owne and not by the merits of Christ our Lord who purchas'd for vs diuine grace without which we are not able to thinke speake or performe any least action of christian Piety and so all our merits being by vs beleeved and acknowledged to be God's gifts we come to say with the Angels Glory in the highest to God and in earth peace to men of good vvill which good vvill being the gift of God all glory is due to him alone VII Be pleased then indifferent Reader to heare what the Councell defines and then iudge whether our doctrine be not most orthodox and holy and the calumnyes of our Aduersaryes most vntrue and vnjust VIII The Councell Sess 6. Can 1. saith If any shall say that man can be justifyed before God by his owne workes which can be wrought eyther by the force of humane nature or by the doctrine of the law without Gods grace by Jesus Christ let him be accursed And Can. 3. If any man shall say that without the prevenient jnspiration and Help of the Holy Ghost a man may beleeue hope loue or repent as he ought that the grace of justification be giuen him be he accursed And in the same place Cap. 5. The sacred councell declares that the beginninge of justification in men who are come the the vse of reason is to be taken from the prevenient grace of God by Christ Iesus that is from his calling by which they are called without any merits of their owne that they who by sinne were averted from God by his exciting and helping grace may be disposed to convert themselues to their justification by freely assenting and cooperating with the same grace so that God touching the hart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost neyther man himselfe doth nothing at all receiuinge that inspiration since it is in his power to reject it neyther yet can he with his owne freewill moue him selfe to justice in the sight of God without his Grace And therfore when the Holy Scripture saith Convert to me and I will convert to you we are put in minde of our freewill When we answer Conuert vs ô Lord tothee and we shall be conuerted we acknowledge our selues to be preuented by Gods ' grace And Chap. 6. They are disposed to justice it selfe while by beinge excited and help'd by Diuine grace conceavinge faith by hearinge they are freely moued to God beleeuinge those things to be true which are reuealed and promised by God and particularly this that God iustifyes a sinner by his grace by the redemption which is in Christ Iesus Chap 7. Although none can be iust except he to whom the merits of our Lord Iesus Christ are communicated yet in this justification of a sinner that is done while by the merit of the same most sacred Passion the charity of God by the Holy Ghost is diffused and is inherent in the harts of those who are iustifyed Chap. 16. Neyther is our justice maintayned as of our selues neither is the justice of God either vnknowne or reiected for that which is sayd to be our justice because we are justifyed by it inherent in vs the selfe same is the justice of God because by him it is infused into vs by the merits of Christ Neither is it to be omitted that although in Holy Scripture so great reckoninge be made of good workes that Christ hath promised that he shall not be deprived of his reward who shall giue to one of his little ones a cuppe of cold water And the Apostle witnesseth that our tribulation which presently is momentary and light worketh aboue measure exceedingly an eternall weight of glory in vs yet far be it from a christian man to confide or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord whose goodnesse towards men is so great that he will haue those to be their merits which are his owne gifts Chap. 8. We are justifyed gratis because nothing which goes before justification whether it be faith or workes doth merit the grace of justification for if it be grace then not of workes otherwise as the Apostle saith Grace is not Grace Chap. 11. Almighty God commands noâ— things impossible but by commanding admonisheth both to do what thou canst and to aske what thou canst not and helps thee that thou mayst be able to doe it Whose commandements are not heauy whose yoke is sweet and burden light For they who are the sonnes of God loue Christ and they who loue him as he witnesseth doe keepe his words which surely they may doe with the help of God Chap. 13. Men ought to feare knowing that they are regenerated to the hope of glory and not yet to glory it selfe from the combat which remaynes with the flesh world and diuell wherin they cannot be victorious vnlesse with the grace of God they obey the Apostle saying we are debters not to the flesh to liue accordinge to the flesh Chap. 16. Christ Jesus dayly giues vertue to the justifyed as the head to the members and the vine to the vine-branches which vertue doth always goe before accompany and follow their good works and without which they could not in any wise be gratefull to God and meritorious Lastly the councell defines If any shall say that a man justifyed either can without the especiall helpe of God perseuer in the justice he hath receiued or that with it he cannot be he accursed IX More might be alledged out of the Councell but this may suffice to
proue the truth of Christian Religion aboue all other and consequently that men may pray for the conservation and encrease of that infallible assent from which we see diverse do fall and others would do so without Gods speciall Grace for which therfor we may and ought to pray Heer by a parenthesis it may be asked what you meane in saying that we are to belieue the Christian Religion we are and may be certaine as if any were actually certaine and yet could not be certaine Ab esse ad posse surely is a known good argument It had bene better sayd we may be and are certaine Men haue a certaine assent that there is a God and yet some belieue this certainty with more perfection than others an all may pray God to encrease it since we see so many turne Atheists Lastly this very Objection wherin you measure the perfection of charity by the perfection of Faith and thence inferr that if Faith be perfect and infallible Charity must be perfect and that no man could possibly make any progress in it I retort vpon your selfe For seing charity may be encreased by prayer and obedience while we liue vpon earth according to that in the Apocalips 21. V. 11. He who is just let him be justifyed yet Faith also must be capable of greater intension and increase in all sorts of persons euen in those who you say by degrees may arriue to a certainty in belief Therfor still we infer from your owne tenets that absolute certainty consists not in an indiuisible poyat but may be encreased and persited 48. By what hath bene sayd I conceiue your objection to be not only sufficiently answered but also confuted and demonstrated to make against your selfe Yet by way of supererogation I must add two considerations First The Apostles praying to Christ to encrease their Faith Domine adauge nobis Fidem Luc. 17.5 Lord encrease faith in vs makes nothing to the purpose of prouing any thing at all touching Faith necessary to saluation because that prayer of the Apostles did concerne fides miraculorum the Faith of working miracles as is manifest by the same Text of S. Luke compared with S. Matthew C. 17. V. 19. Where to the Disciples asking why they could not cast out the diuell our Saujour answered Propter incrednatatem Vestram By reason of your incredulity and yet it were impious to thinke that the Apostles vnder such a Maister were ignorant of Articles necessary to saluation in those tymes and therfor their want was only of Faith required to work miracles and accordingly our Sauiour in both those Euangeitsts tooke that occasion to speake of the faith of miracles wherby they would be able to remooue mountaynes Therfore this your proofe taken from the prayers of the Apostles for increase of their faith is manifestly nothing to the purpose as neither is the Argument which you bring Pag 37. N. 9. out of those words Lord I belieue helpe my vnbelief which concernes only faith of miracles of deliuering that mans sonne from a deafe and dumbe diuell Marc 9.23 Woe be to Protestants if faith of working miracles be necessary to Saluation In the meane tyme you were wise enough not to set downe the particular places of Scripture which you say speake of a weake strongh little great faith c least vpon examination they might haue bene found subject to this or some such cleare exception 49. My second consideration is that wheras he saith Euery Text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake or of any that were strong in faith of any that were of little or any that were of great faith Euery such Text is a demonstratiue refutation of this vaine fancy all this proues nothing at all vnless when mention is made of a weake and little faith he had proued such a weak faith to be sufficient for Saluation or that such a faith though strong in it selfe yet be not called weake in comparison of a stronger as Diuines teach Faith to be obscure compared with some more euident naturall or supernaturall knowledg though it selfe be a great light according to that To a candel shining in a darke place 2. Pet 1.19 and all true Acts of the vnderstanding are lights Our Sauiour sayd Marc. 10.18 None is good but one God because all created Goodness though in it selfe it be truly good yet compared to God is as if it were not In this comparatiue way some may be sayd to be weake in supernaturall Hope or Charity and yet euery least degree of those vertues is in it selfe very great and strong as I explicated aboue I suppose you will not affirme euery weake kind of faith to be sufficient for saluation since Pag. 37. N. 9. you say God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be liuing and effectuall vnto true obedience which supposes that some faith may be so weake that it will not be accepted and therfor when the Scripture mentioneth a weak faith you must proue that such a faith is sufficient to saluation or if it be sufficient you must then shew that by a weake faith is vnderstood a faith only probable and fallible in it selfe and not only compared to another stronger faith otherwise you will be found to say no more to the purpose than when your Objection spoke of faith of miracles in stead of Faith necessary to saluation And yet we must take such proofes as these for demonstratiue refutations and conuincing arguments for so you stile these your reasōs 50. No better than these is your Argument Pag. 37. N. 9. where you say He commands vs to receyue them who are weake in faith and therby declares that he receiues them I know not what command of our Sauiour you meane vnless it be that of which S. Pauie speakes Rom. 14.1 Insirmum in side assumite non in disceptationibus cogitationum Take to you the infirme in faith not in disputations of cogitations Which Protestants translate Him that is weake in faith receyue you but not in doubtfull disputations And in the margent or not to judge his doubtfull thoughts And in the argument before this Chapter men may not contemne nor condemne one an other for things indifferent All which shew that the Apostle speakes not of Christian Faith necessary to saluation which cannot be esteemed a thing indifferent but of some other matter as indeed he doth namely of a doubt amongst Christians at that tyme about eating certaine meates once forbidden to the jewes which some made a scruple to doe others not and so weakness in faith signifyes only a scruple or tenderness of conscience for this particular case and therfor the Apostle in the next verse mentions the contrary perswasion of others One belieueth that he may eate all things that is is not troubled with scruple of conscience in this matter What is this to our question about faith and belief of Articles necessary to be belieued by all Christians Or how
doth this proue that Faith common to all Christians is sufficient to saluation though it be but probable and not certaine I beseech you consider what you say In the matter of which the Apostle speakes the comparison was not betweene a strong and weake faith or belief of the same thing as our case goes but the question was of contrary perswasions one part judging that to be lawfull which the other held to be vnlawfull And therfor if you will haue your Objection rightly applyed or not to be clearly impertinent a man weake in Faith must be he who belieues Christian Faith not to be true nor the practise of it lawfull And doe you belieue such a weake Faith to be sufficient to saluation or that the Apostle will haue vs receyue them who are weake in Faith in that sense that is who belieue errours contrary to Christian Faith Your passing from Faith necessary to saluation to Faith of Miracles was an inpertinency but this your substituting to Christian Faith errours contrary to it hath too much of the Impious 51. Object 3. Pag. 326. N. 4. You goe forward in impugning the infallibility of Faith in this manner If this doctrine were true then seing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in any matter of Faith though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolu tely destructiue so long as it lasts of all true and sauing Faith which you are so farr from granting that you make it no sinne at all but only an occasion of merit 52. Answer First Your selfe must answer this objection In those whom Pag. 36. N. 9. you say Gods spirit may and will aduance beyond the certainty of euidence to the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know what they did not belieue And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ him selfe with their eares c. In the Apostles to whom you grant P. 329. N. 7. an absolute Certainty in respect of the things of which they were eye-witnesses In those who belieue as you Pag. 330. N. 8. pretend to do that it is infallibly Certaine that we are firmety to belieue the truth of Christian Religion In those who haue an absolute Certainty of this Thesis All which God reueales for truth is true which Pag. 36. N. 8. You say is a proposition euidently demonstrable or rather euident of it selfe In those who denying Christian Faith to be certaine yet pretend to be certaine that it is probable as you and your fellowe Socinians doe In all these Certaintyes I say you must answer what you object against vs. For seing as you say not any the least doubting can consist with Certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in the rehearsed truthes all which concerne matter of Faith though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of the belief of the Gospell and particularly of that part of which the Apostles were eye-witnesses of the certainty that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmiâ—y to belieue the truth of Christan Religion of the assent to this truth All which God reueales for truth is true which is a most fundamentall article of Faith of certainty that Christian Religion is probable all which I conceyue you will be farr from granting seing that euen according to the Doctrine of Socinians there can be no actuall sinnes meerly involuntary 53. But this is not all It must follow by your argument that euery Doubt taken properly though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts euen of the Probability of Christian Faith which being destroyed there remaynes no belief at all either certaine or probable of Christian Religion I sayd every doubt taken properly which is when our vnderstanding finding not sufficient reason to belieue one side more than another can only doubt of both without a positive assent to either as contrarily it happens in a probableact which assents determinatly to one part though not without feare that the contrary is true For it is cleare that such a doubt which abstracts from a positiue assent to either part is absolutely incompossible with a probable perswasion which positiuely determines to one side it being a manifest contradiction for the same act to abstract from both parts and yet to determine vs to one and so every such Doubt must be as you sayd against vs a Deadly sinne But why do I seeke after other instances than this most obvious and common to all Christians euen to Socinians You pretend to belieue that Christian Religion is true and consequently cannot judg at the same tyme that it is false Therfor this judgment Christian Religion is false though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of all faith where by you belieue Christian Religion to be true And so in vaine you sayd no least Doubt could consist with the contrary certainty as if your objection did touch only our infallibility of Faith wheras it ouerthrowes euen your belief that Christian Faith is true I do therfore end as I began and say you yea all Christians must answer your objection 54. Secondly directly to your Objection of a doubt resisted and involuntary and yet destructiue of infallible Faith because any the least Doubting caÌ„not consist with certainty I answer If he who doubts conceiue his doubt to be against that which he belieues by Faith and yet doth not resist such a doubt is voluntary and destroyes true Faith but makes nothing for your purpose who speake of a doubt resisted and not voluntary If he resist then he rejects the Doubt and so doubts not but retaines his former vndoubted assent with advantage of a new victory against the temptation to doubt and it is non-sense or implicatio in adjecto to talke of doubting and resisting at the same tyme. For if it be resisted it is not accepted nor is it a doubtfull assent or secunda operatio intellectus which affirmes or denyes by way of judgment but is a meere apprehensio or prima operatio of our vnderstanding representing to our mynd a doubt which by resistance is stopt from passing to a judgment as when Dauid sayd Psalm 52.1 The foolish man sayd in his hart there is no God these words there is no God affirmed by the foolish man were in respect of the Prophet represented only by way of apprehension and not of judgment or affirmation that it was so And Aristotle teaches that men may perhaps think they belieue express contradictions when indeed they only apprehend them without any assent or belief How easy then is it to conceyue that a doubt offered but resisted neither is nor can be destructiue of infallible Faith seing the resistance is cause that we do not doubt But now if we suppose that such a doubt
objections out of scripture And therfor they cannot with certainty believe the sayd principle Your self say Pag 61. N. 23. If our Saviour had intended that all Controversyes in Religion should be by some visible judg finally determined who can doubt but in playne termes he would have expressed himself about this matter And may not we turne the same argument against you and say If our Saviour had intended that all poynts of Faith and religion should be evident in scripture without relation to any visible judg church or vnwrtiten Tradition who can doubt but in plaine termes he would have expressed himself in this matter And my retortion is stronger than your Argument can be because true Catholique Doctrine belieues not only scripture or the written word of God but tradition also or the word of God not written which all grant to haue bene before scripture and from which you confess we receiue scripture it self And so although nothing were sayd in scripture of a visibse judg to determine controversyes in Religion yet vniuersall tradition sense of all Christians and practise of Gods church in determining and defining matters of Faith were sufficient to assure vs therof But Protestants must either alledg evident scripture or nothing at all This I say not as if we wanted evident scripture for the necessity of a visible judg of controversyes but only to shew that we haue not that necessity of alledging scripture for this and every other particular poynt which Protestants haue 25. Secondly I proue our assertion thus we are to suppose that Allmighty God having ordayned Man to a supernaturall End cannot faile to provide on his part meanes sufficient for attaining therof Since then Faith is necessary for ariving to that End if it cannot be learned except by scripture alone no doubt but he would have obliged the Apostles to write as he obliged them to preach and Christians to heare the Gospell For if he left it to their freedom it is cleare that he did not esteeme writing to be necessary which yet must be most necessary if we can attaine Faith and salvation only by scripture But Protestants even for this cause that they are to belieue nothing which is not expressed in scripture cannot affirme that our Saviour gaue any such command to his Apostles seing it is evident no such thing is expressed in scripture Therfor they cannot avouch any such command But for preaching we read Marc 16. V. 15. Going into the whole world preach yee the Gospell to all creatures And in obedience to this command it is recorded V. 20. But they going forth preached every where And our Saviour living on earth sent his Apostles abroad with this injunction Matth 10.7 Euntes praedicate Goe preach The Apostle saith Rom 10.17 Faith is by hearing And V. 18. have they not heard And certes into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth and vnto the ends of the whole earth the words of them where we heare of hearing and speaking but not of writing or reading of a sound conveyed to the eares of the whole world not of any booke or writing set before their eyes Thus we see that only two of the Apostles haue also made themselves Evangelists by writing the Gospell though all were Evangelists by preaching it Chill and his fellowes thinke they can demonstrate out of S. Luke more clearly than out of any other Evangelist that his Gospell contaynes all poynts necessary to salvation and yet He is so farr from producing any command he had to write which had bene the most cleare effectuall and necessary cause that could haue bene alledged that contrarily he shewes that it was done by free election saying Luc 1.1 3. because many haue gone about c. It seemed good also to me to write c. Neither doth any one of all the Canonicall writers alledg a command for writing S. Paule saith 1. Cor 9.16 If I evangelize it is no glory to me for necessity lyeth vpon me for woe is to me if I evangelize not But he sayes not woe to me if I write not and accordingly we see some of the canonicall writers differred writing a long tyme after our B. Sauiours Ascension and did not write but on severall incident occasions as Bellarmine de verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. demonstrates out of Eusebius If then it was not judged necessary that scripture should be written but that the Church had other meanes to beget and conserue true Faith and religion as S. Paule 1. Cor 15.1 expressly saith I doe you to vnderstand the Gospell which I preached vnto you which also you received in the which also you stand And V. 11. So we preach and so you haue believed What can be more vnreasonable than to belieue it to be necessary that all things necessary be evidently contayned in scripture alone without dependance on tradition or the church Or who can believe that the Saints Paule Iames Iude Iohn in their Epistles written vpon severall occasions or to private persons intended to write a Catechisme or specify all necessary points of Faith Hence it is that Eusebius Histor Eccles L. 3. C. 24. affirmes that S. Iohn was sayd to haue preached the Gospell even almost to the end of his life without notice of any scripture and in generall that the Apostles were not sollicitous to write much And the same is observed by S. Chrysostome Hom 1. in Act. Apost If then Protestants cannot proue by evident scripture that all Canonicall writers receyved a command to write how will they proue that they were bound to publish their writings wherof as I sayd some were directed to private persons or that others were or are bound to publish them or to reade them being published And if they can shew no command for these things how can they maintayne that there is no meanes to know matters of Faith except by scripture 26. Thirdly you teach That all necessary poynts are evident in scripture though there be many points evident which are not necessary that we cannot precisely determine what points in particular be necessary that such a determination or distinction is needless For all necessary points being evident in scripture whosoever believes all evident points is sure to know all necessary points and more This is your chiefest ground in this matter But it is evidently refuted by willing you to reflect that by this meanes all must be obliged to know all the cleare or evident texts of scripture otherwise he cannot be sure that he knowes all necessary points since you giue him the assurance of knowing all necessary points only by this meanes of knowing all points that are evident Therfore if he be not sure that he knowes all evident points he cannot be sure that he knowes all such as are necessary Yea every one will be obliged to know every text or period of scripture and to examine whether it be evident or obscure least that if vpon examination it appeare to be
For if you would be pleased to belieue or at least for the present to abstract from both parts and not suppose the contrary that beside scripture there are other Meanes to propose Divine Verityes your Demand looses all force it being no consequence that when there are divers Meanes to attaine one End we must either make vse determinately of one meanes alone or els not arriue to that End and therfor you must first suppose that there is no meanes but scripture to belieue Divine Revelations before you can make good this consequence Those many of whom S. Luke speaks and S. Luke himself intended to write the Gospell of Christ Therfor they were obliged to write all Poynts necessary to salvation For you will be instantly and easily taken of and answered that beside scripture there are other meanes for the sayd purpose at least in your Argument you must not suppose the contrary without any proof 113. 2. You demand Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians 114. Answer to this I haue sayd already that it is a Chimera for you to faine what in particular those many purposed to sett downe as also why S. Luke should be obliged to write the same particulars which you may dreame those men should haue set downe And your Demand must be answerd by yourself in regard you cannot deny but that many things were and are most certainly believed among Christians which are not expressed in S. Lukes Gospell for example those particulars concerning our B. Saviour which S. Luke sets downe only in the Acts of the Apostles about his Ascension Apparition to S. Stephen to S. Paule c as also those mysteryes which are omitted by S. Luke and written by the other Evangelists and other poynts once believed by Christians and written by none of the Evangelists nor any other Canonicall Writer as S. Iohn Cap. 21. witnesseth You do therfor both begg the question in supposing that those many of whom S. Luke speaks must of necessity haue set downe all necessary points as if all such points must be written by every one who vndertakes to write the Gospell of Christ and also deliver a manifest vntruth as if Christians did not most surely belieue many more Articles than are set downe in S. Lukes Gospell or in the writings of those others if they intended to write the same things which he did 115. Your 3. Demand is Whether the whole Gospell of Christ and every necessary Doctrine of it were not surely believed among Christians 116. Answer Every Doctrine necessary to salvation was surely believed by Christians but to suppose that every thing believed by Christans is written in S. Lukes Gospell or in the whole Bible is to begg the question For you know it is the thing which we deny As also it is certaine that many things surely believed by Christians are not written in S. Lukes Gospell nor in any of the Gospells as I shewed in answer to your second Demand You demand 117. 4. Whether they which were eye-witnesses and Ministers of â—he word from the beginning delivered not the whole Gospell of Christ 118. Answer you either begg the Question if you will still suppose that they delivered in writing the whole Gospell that is all the Doctrine of Christ and also vtter a falshood it being most certaine that they delivered and others believed more then is written as S. John witnesseth Or else you speake nothing to the purpose if you meane only that they delivered in writing some things of the whole Gospell which no man denyes but you should proue that they delivered all necessary Poynts 119. 5. You demand Whether he does not vndertake to write in order these things wherof he had perfect vnderstanding from the first 120. I answer this as I did the last If you meane that he vndertakes to write in order All things necessary wherof he had perfect vnstanding you both begg the question and say more than is true If you meane that he vndertaks to write only some of these things wherof he had perfect vnderstanding from the first you speak not to the purpose of proving that he writes all necessary Points of Faith You demand 121. 6. VVhether he had not perfect vnderstanding of the whole Gospell of Christ 122. Answer Who can assure you that he had perfect vnderstanding of every Miracle which our Saviour wrought But suppose he had perfect vnderstanding of the vvhole Gospell in the largest sense that you can imagine vpon this if you vvill say that he vvrote all Points of vvhich he had perfect vnderstanding you both begg the question and deliver a manifest vntruth as I haue proved 123. 7. You demand VVhether he does not vndertake to write to Theothilus of all things wherin he had been instructed 124. Ansvver vndoubtedly no and I must still repeate that you begg the Question by supposing it and vtter an vntruth by affirming it For to omitt other poynts S. Luke himself in the very first Chapter of the Acts instructed Theophilus in severall things not expressed in his Gospell for example of some circumstances of our B Saviours Ascension his giving the Faithfull at that tyme most holy documents an Angell declaring to them that he vvas to come in judgment a punishment of Judas the Traytour not expressed in the Gospell He burst in the middes and all his bovvels gusshed out Act. 1.18 his sending the Holy Ghost to say nothing of other Points contayned in the Acts in the Gospells of S. Matthevv S. Mark and S. John and in other Canonicall writings not expressed by S. Luke in his Gospell of all which we cannot imagine Theophilus so famous and principall a Christian to haue bene ignorant 125. 8. You demand VVhether he had not bene instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ 126. Answer Certainly he was and in many more Points than were necessary But you begg the Question if you suppose that S. Luke wrote all things wherin Theophilus had bene instructed as also vtter an vntruth as I haue proved or speak not to the purpose if you meane only that he wrote some of those Poynts 127. 9. You demand VVhether in the other Text All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things 128. Answer This were an excellent way of proving if it were as good as it is easy To proue what you would haue by the only asking whether it be so which is indeed nothing but to begg the Question Our Question is whether S. Luke haue set downe all necessary Poynts and you proue it by only asking whether it be not so You know we say that neither the Gospell of S. Luke nor the whole scripture alone containes in particular all Points necessary to salvation and as for the word All in S. Luke it cannot signify vniversally and absolutely all things neither
his Apostles therfor if these people were thē obliged to belieue the cōtēts of scripture christiās now are for the same reasō obliged to belieue scripture it self 19. Fiftly Not vnlike to this Reason is that which I tooke from your owne words Pag 115. N. 156. where you teach that nothing can chalenge our belief but what hath descended to vs by originall and vniversall Tradition and that scripture alone is such therfor scripture doth chaleng our belief and is an object of Christian Faith 20 From these two last Arguments I deduce that this Truth Sctipture is the word of God is an object to be believed by Faith though we should suppose that it were proposed to one whom God would not oblige to know the particular Mysteryes contained therin because independently of any such obligation it is sufficiētly proposed as a thing revealed by God and consequently as an Article of Faith abstracting from any relation to a further end Which consideration overthrowes the ground of your assertion that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it and therfore itself is not an object of Faith 21. Sixtly If we be not obliged to belieue the scripture Protestants are not bound to belieue the contents therof as I haue often sayd vpon severall occasions because they haue no notice of the contents but by scripture it self Neither can you answer that we are obliged to belieue scripture as a meanes to lead vs to the verityes contayned in it For this answer supposes that I haue some notice and belief of being obliged to belieue the matter of scripture before I belieue the scripture wheras Protestants must say the direct contrary to wit that all their belief or any apprehension of the particular Truth of scripture proceeds from and is grounded in scripture which therfor must be believed before we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths So that if we haue no antecedent obligation to belieue scripture we cannot possibly in the grounds of Protestants be obliged to belieue the contents therof Besides this Answer overthrowes your owne Assertion and grants that we are obliged to belieue the scripture at least as a meanes de facto necessary to attayne the belief of the contents therof it being cleare that if I be obliged to attayne an End I am necessarily obliged to vse the Meanes which is necessary to attaine that End and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you but strongly proves that you haue a strict obligation to belieue scripture since you are obliged to compasse that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it containes Neither is our Question whether scripture be a materiall Object believed for itself alone as I sayd aboue but whether it be an Object which I am obliged to belieue which this very Answer is forced to grant This discourse is clearly confirmed by your words Pag. 86. N. 93. It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of cōtinuing the knowledg of thē heing perished Much more you must say it is apparēt it had not bene Gods will that the contēts of scripture should be knowne if we need not knowe yea if we may reject the only meanes of begetting or continuing the knowledg of them which you in this very particular acknowledg to be scripture and thence you inferr that God could not but preserue it from any vndiscernable corruption 22. Seventhly They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith because the Apostles and Apostolicall men did preach them believed not only the Mysteryes or Matters which they preached but also the Authority of those Preachers as of persons worthy of credit so that it was a materiall object of Faith that the Apostles spoke in the name of God and inspired by him yea the matters proposed were believed for the Authority of the proposers which therfor must be believed at least as much as the things believed yourself saying Pag 377. N. 59. VVe must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof◠Therfor as their words so their writings must be believed as an object of faith at least as much as the truths which they spoke or wrote neither doth speaking or writing make any difference at all in this point And as you say their writings were referred to the belief of the things which they wrote or were taken as Meanes for that End so their speaking or preaching was ordained to beget a belief of the things which they spoke and so there is a most exact parity neither cā you exclude the authority of scripture from being a materiall Object of Faith but you must likewise say that mē were not bound to belieue the Authority of the Apostles when they preached and consequently that they were not obliged to belieue the Truths which they preached and which they could belieue only in vertue of the belief of such an authority And further although it were supposed that some one or more believed the Articles of Christian Faith by an extraordinary Motion and light of the Holy Ghost without the Preaching or writing of the Apostles and lived according to their belief and were saved In that case although those men could not be obliged to belieue the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a meanes for attaining the belief of those Articles which they believed already yet they would remayne obliged to belieue the authority of the Apostles if at any tyme it came to be sufficiētly propounded and proved by miracles or other argumēts of credibility and could no more reject it thē they could disbelieue the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed Therfor the authority of the Apostles and the infallibility of their preaching ād writing is sufficient to terminate an act of faith that is to be a materiall object therof even of it self or takē alone because so taken it may be proved to be revealed by God which is the formall motiue for which we belieue all the materiall object of faith Since therfor you teach as I haue often put you in mynd that scripture had bene confirmed by Miracles you cānot deny it to be a materiall object of Faith And this argument is stronger against you thē the case I put doth declare wherin it was supposed that the articles of our faith were knowne by some other meanes then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles wheras de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture which therfor you are obliged to belieue vpō a double title or account that is both as it is credible in itself by divine argumēts abstracting frō any further end ād also as a meanes to attaine the sayd end of believing the articles therin contayned 23. Eightly You confess
and didst eate with them And accordingly S. Chrysostome Hom. 24. in Act. Cap. 11. saith Those who were of the circumcision not the Apostles did contend They were offended saith the scripture not a litle and marke vpon what pretense They sayd not why hast thou preacht But why hast thou eaten Neither did they object that of preaching for they knew that it was the gift of God According to which saying even the converted Jewes were not offended with S. Peter for preaching to but for eating with Gentils That before the conversion of Cornelius other Gentils were become Christians Cornel. a Lapide in Act. Cap. 10. post versum 48. affirmes and proves by divers arguments and therfor S. Peter was not ignorant that he and the other Apostles were to preach to the Gentils but he did abstaine from preaching publikly and as it were solemnly to avoide the offence of Jewes converted to Christ till by this heavenly vision he might sweetly aÌ„d effectually perswade them that such was the will of God Thus S. John Chrys Hom 22. in Act Cap 10 saith Because it was so to fall out that they would all accuse Peter as a breaker of the law which was very common with them he sayd necessarily and opportunely I haue never eaten Did he himself feare God forbid But Gods spirit did so direct him that he might haue in readynes a defense against those who would reprehend him c Not ô Lord because I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And a voyce came to him That which God hath purifyed do not thou call common This seemed to be spoken to him but indeed it was wholy directed to the Jewes for if the maister S. Peter be blamed much more they that is the Jewes for thinking that it was vnlawfull to eate with Gentils It appeares then that neither S. Peter nor the other Apostles did feare to deale and preach to the Gentils but the Holy Ghost spiritus moderabatur as S. Chrysostome speakes and ordained all for the satisfaction of others 35. But for better vnderstanding this whole matter we are to reflect on three things For we may consider first the eating of Jewes with Gentils 2. Eating meates forbidden to the Jewes 3. preaching to them Now S. Chrysostome as we haue seene observes that the Jewes were offended with S. Peter for eating with Gentils and if we consider as I may say the letter or the most immediate literall sense of the vision made to S. Peter it had respect to the Law of the Jewes to whom certaine meates were forbidden and esteemed vncleane as appeares Chap 10. V. 12. Where in were all fourfooted beasts and that creepe on the earth and foules of the aire and accordingly S. Peter sayd V. 14. I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing And there is not any thing sayd directly and precisely of preaching to Gentils but at most by consequence because the Apostles could not commonly and constantly preach to them but that they should haue occasion to eate with them or els by way of signification or that vncleane meates in generall did also signify Gentils whom the Jewes esteemed as it were vncleane and irreligious persons Yet preaching and Eating are of their nature different as we may deale with an excommunicate person for his conversion though ordinarily we may not eate with him This being so you cannot affirme that the Apostles did thinke it vnlawfull to preach to the Gentils vnless you do also belieue that they judged Christians converted from Judaisme to be obliged to obserue the whole Law of the Jewes in conformity to the vision presented to S. Peter of all sorts of beasts or meates which the Jewes could not lawfully eate Will you grant this Will you ranke the Apostles with that faction of Pharisees converted to Christ which troubled the most primitiue Church by preaching that the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation even for converted Gentils S. Paul sayth If you be circumfised Christ shall profit you nothing Gal 5. N. 2. And do you thinke that the Apostles were in an errour which must draw vpon them so heauy a doome A Councell was gathered about this matter not that the Apostles could doubt therof but for satisfaction and quiet of Christians and in like manner that vision was shewed to S. Peter not for rectifying any errour of his owne about preaching to Gentils but for pacifying and setling the mynds of Jewes converted to Christianity Haue we not heard you say Pag. 101. N. 127. That it is cleare in Scripture that the observation of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary And therfor it cannot be imagined that the Apostles for whose authority we belieue the scripture could doubt therof Or if you thinke the Apostles might erre about the necessity of observing the Mosaicall Law what certainty can we haue notwithstanding the Definition of that first Councell but that still we may thinke the keeping of Moyses his Law to be necessary you see how much you did exaggerate in saying that the Apostles them selves for a tyme continued in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth is vnanswerably evident from the story of the acts of the Apostles seing this Story as you will needs vnderstand it doth either proue nothing for your purpose or more than you will grant or is true in itself and so by proving too much you come to proue nothing at all and this only remaynes true That although scripture did containe all necessary truths yet we could not belieue them for such a scripture as you offer vs which certainly could be no Rule of Faith at all 36. Your Third errour for I am willing to reduce them to as small a number as I can though in those which I haue layd togeather in gross many particulars distinct from one another are involved as for example every one of the conditions which you require for infallibility of the writings of the Apostles be so many severall errours Your third errour I say is set downe in the same Pag 144. in the next Number 32. in these words For those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelations why we should take them to be Divine Revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Therfor when S. Paul sayes 1. Epist to the Cor 7.12 To the rest speake I not the Lord And againe concerning Virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord but I deliver my judgment If we wâ—ll pretend that the Lord did certainly speake what S. Paul spake and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that Spirit by which he wrote Which moved him to write as in other places Divine Revelations which he certainly knew to be such so in this place his owne judgment touching some things which God had not particularly revealed vnto him 37. This your doctrine
is profanely applyed to our present case wherin it is an vnspeakable benefit to haue our liberty not taken away but moderated directed and elevated to the End of Eternall Happyness If in any case certainly in this that saying Licentia omnes sumus deteriores is most true as lamentable experience teaches in so many Heresyes and so implacable contentions of Heretikes among themselves by reason of the liberty which every one presumes to take in interpreting Holy Scripture And for avoiding so great an inconvenience and mischeife it is necessary to acknowledg some infallible Living Judg and so your Rule for Liberty being rightly applyed proves against yourself And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility I must returne against you your owne words Me thinkes in all Reason you that presume to take away Priviledges once granted by God himself for the Eternall Good of soules should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt especially it being a Rule Privilegia sunt amplianda chiefly when they proceed from a Soveraigne Power and are helped by that Dictate of Reason Melior est conditio possidentis And in the meane tyme you are hee who breake that Rule Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate by pretending that men are obliged to submit Reason though seeming never so certaine and evident to the contents of Scripture which yet you teach not to be manifestly and certainly but only probably true Against which is your owne saying Praesumitur pro libertate vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur as it happens in your fallible and only probable Faith which cannot be manifestly proved to be true for if it could be so proved Christian Faith should be absolutely certaine and not only probable And so continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary 76. I will not here loose tyme in examining your saying Pag 101. N. 126. The Bookes of Scripture which were receyved by those that receyved fowest had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were receyved by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contayned in every one of the Gospells Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospells and omitted in others part of the Doctrine of Christianity taught by the Apostles to Christians Besides what can you vnderstand by these words Pag 101. N. 125. For ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility And yet Charity Maintayned spoke of the Church of Christ as it was before any Scripture of the new TestameÌ„t was written which Church He proved to be infallible because at that tyme there could be no other infallible Rule or Judg which is a cleare aÌ„d convincing ReasoÌ„ And so I hope it appeares by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility 77. Sixthly You haue these words Pag 115. N. 156 Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and vniversall Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to vs. Therfore nothing but Scripture can challeng our belief Now I saie in like manner it is neither delivered in Scripture nor otherwise hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition that Scripture is not at this tyme joyned with some infallible Living Judg as once it was or that the Church was ever devested of that Authority and infallibility which it had or that God had provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of a Living and infallible Guide as you say or that Scripture alone without Tradition is the Rule of Faith Therfore none of these Points can challeng our belief My saying hath bene proved hertofore and yourself confess that you do not proue out of Scripture that with the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church but contrarily that they did remayne togeather for a tyme. 78. Seaventhly I take an Argument from your owne Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall Object of Faith or an Article which we belieue To which Maior I subsume thus But that Meanes by assenting to which alone I belieue all other Points must itself be assented to and believed for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not belieue Therfore Scripture alone cannot be the Meanes by which I come to belieue all other Points And seing no other ordinary Meanes to produce Faith can be assigned besides Scripture and the Church we must inferr that the Church is the ordinary Meanes to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently even according to your owne Doctrine she must be infallible Otherwise as you say of the Meanes to decide controversyes Pag 35. N. 7. We can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing 79. Eightly You confess that the Church erring in any Fundamentall Point ceases to be a Church and seing you also profess that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamentall you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not fayled vnless we belieue that she is infallible and cannot fayle And yet most Protestants graâ—â— that the Church cannot fayle our Saviour having promised tha◠〈◊〉 gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds in his Answer to the Preface Pag â—3 saith 〈◊〉 belieue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church â—â—th continued and never shall faile so long as the world endureth And we account is a sprophane Heresy to teach otherwise And Potter avoucheth that Christ hath promised the Church shall never fayle as you confesse Pag 277. N. 61. That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctour affirmes that God hath promised absolutely And yourself say Pag 106 N. 140. VVâ— yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceyue God hath promised so much By the way if according to Whitaker it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fayle and that according to Potter God hath promised so much absolutly yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and that you also conceiue our Saviour Christ hath done so how dare you say Pag 15. N. 18. The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand belieue to be a damnable Heresy Is it not a damnble Heresy to belieue that Christ can faile of his promise Besides since these Protestants profess and you also conceaue that God hath promised the Church shall certainly be assisted so far as not to erre in Fundamentall Points I aske whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God or no Whatsoever you answer for Protestants and yourself
Maintayned it followes that they remaine still in force and proue this most necessary Truth Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith but Tradition and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion And whosoever will take an other way will haue reason and God grant it proue not too late to tremble at those words of Uincent Lirinens contra Heres Cap 23. concerning Origen Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones Veterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta Et paulò post Non audies inquit verba Prophetae illius While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions and magistery of the Ancient he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet God grant that every one heare this wholsome advise The neglect therof alone hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours 101. But because you do without end object that we cannot proue the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle proving the Church by Scripture and Scripture by the Church which is in effect to proue the Church by the Church and the Scripture by Scripture I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection CHAP V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH 1. I Say in what manner and order For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church inremaines only now to declare how we can do it without falling into a Circle proving the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture which you object without end though if you be a man of any solid learning it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectiō We grant that with different sorts of persons we must proceed in a different way If one belieue not the Church or Notes proprietyes and prerogatives belonging to Her and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture as contrarily to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority what Scripture is Canonicall and what is the true sense therof by informing him what Canon the Church receyves and what Interpretation she gives Thus in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence Vnity Authority Sanctity Propagation efficacy Infallibility and other Propertyes of the Church But speaking per se and ex natura rei the Church is proved independently of Scripture which we receyue from the Church as you grant which was in Being before the Scripture as all must yield and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church For none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible and many were converted to the true Church before they could belieue the Scripture as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant that there be Meanes and Arguments wherby some men may gaine such credit as others may and ought vnder payne of damnation to belieue that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God and Teachers of Divine Doctrine 2. Thus Moyses the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him did proue themselves true Preachers by many effectuall and most certaine inducements independently of the Old or New Testament yea S. Irenaeus relates as you expressly grant that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ his Aposties and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion proved themselves to be sent by God being verifyed of them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me by Miracles Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrine admirable repentance of sinners Chang of manners Conversion of all sorts of Persons of all Countryes through the whole world and this to a Faith Profession and Religion that proposes many Points as necessary to be believed aboue and seemingly contrary to humane Reason and against mens naturall inclinations togeather with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs Abnegation of Confessours Purity of Uirgins Fortitude even of the youngest Age and weaker sexe and other admirable conspicuous Notes and strong inforcements to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Uictory over all sorts of enemyes Conversion of Infidels all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last and it seemes God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther and other moderne Heretikes for the greater confusion of them and glory of his Church and the same I say of the name Catholique which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles particularly in the Sea of Rome Vnity Stability Perpetuity The Church I say by these and the like evident Arguments proves that she deserves credit as the first Doctours and Preachers did and consequently that her Doctrine and Definitions in Matters concerning Faith are certainly true And we may with all truth avouch that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church or despises them as insufficient opens an inevitable way for Jewes Turks Gentils and all enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the truth therof which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church and in no other Congregation Moreover as the Apostles and Apostolicall men were not believed to be Infallible because they wrote Scripture but contrarily their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture wherby we are uery sure not to run in a
our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yielding you salvation neither Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seing you say that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation by what Logicke will you deduce that we belieue not as much as is necessary 150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter and yourselfe may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty you could say Pag 280. N. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you And Pag 308. 108. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary you haue been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a saying voyd of all truth and a shamefull calumny in you 151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be allelged out of other Protestants as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter Dr. Lawd Pag 299 saith I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeve the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe Behold not only a possibility of saluation but also the reason therof because we belieue the Creed c which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselues may be saved though they differ in many Points from one another This I say is the reason of Dr. Lawd which other Protestants must approue though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therfore doe in this as in many other things speake inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag 376. he sayth The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion for the Christian ReligioÌ„ is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therfore say I we hold no Fundamentall errours wherin whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And P 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I thinke cannot be denyed aÌ„d in proofe hereof P 281. he alledges Luther Field Jos Hall Geo Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And Dr. Jer Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Pag 251. Sect â—0 teaches that we keepe the foundation and belieue many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to Salvation And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding which as I sayd may easily be believed of vs Catholikes who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of transubstantiation are not Fundamentall errours and also saieth these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag 258. that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry in adoring the Sacrament For further satisfaction in this matter the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley Tract 2. Sect 14. As That we are of the Church That we are of the family of Iesus Christ a part of the house of God That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation That we are the Church of God That the Catholike and Reformed make not two but one same Religion agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion That they are Domestikâ— of Faith and branches of the same viâ—e And Tract 1. Sect 6. Subdiv 1. That Those who live and dy in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved and they are charged by very learned Protestants of ignorance and absurdity who are of the contrary opinion 132. I hope now it appeares that even in the judgment of learned Protestants Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfore that Luther could not be excused from Schisme in dividing himselfe from all Churches for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse especially seing they who forsooke vs maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall as Potter Pag 67. plainly confesses and appeares manifestly by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves and the agreement of diverse of them with vs even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore Yet to leaue nothing vntouched I will goe forward not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs as to take away all pretence of cavills as also to take occasion of delivering some Considerations of importance against our Adversaryes 153. Object 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves yet they are against Gods Revelation and Command not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity and consequently such errours are damnable and for which the Roman Church might be forsaken 154. Answer First This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours but also against the Reformers therof seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes some de facto must be in errour wherof Grotius Rivetiani Apologetici Discu P 15. saith Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident vt conciliari nullo modo possint Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere ita credidisse Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree that it is impossible they can be reconciled It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions were of opinion that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions Nay Protestants do further teach that it cannot be otherwise
which we receiue by Tradition Scripture is vnnecessary as you speak of Tradition and so is not to be the only Rule of Faith nor is there any necessity at all that it containe evidently the whole Tradition as you inferr which is most evidently false seing S. John writes that the world could not containe all that might haue been written of our B. Saviour To say nothing that one Tradition and that the chiefest of all other in the account of Protestants is that Scripture is the Word of God which you profess cannot be proved by Scripture itselfe 55. And now we haue a cleare Answer to your Objection out of S. Irenaeus as if he had taught that Scripture containes evidently the whole Tradition You cite not the place But it is Lib 3. Cap 1. where he saith We haue received the disposition of our salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospell came vnto vs. VVhich Gospell truly the Apostles first preached and afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing to vs to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith These words you alledge and in your margent cite Bellarmine de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 11. answering them much to your advantage as you pretend But you dissemble his first Answer which demonstrates that S. Irenaeus doth in no wise favour your pretence Bellarmine in Answer to Kemnitius who made this same Objection out of S. Irenaeus saith Respondeo Irenaeum non dicere nihil aliud Apostolos predicavisse quà m quod scripserunt sed solùm scripsisse Evangelium quod antea praedicaverant quod est verum non contra nos I answer that S. Irenaeus doth not assirme the Apostles to haue preached nothing els beside that which they wrote but only that they wrote the Gospell which they had preached before which is true and not against vs. Now how can you impugne this Answer of Bellarmine otherwise than by begging the question and supposing that the Evangelists cannot be sayd to haue Written the Gospell vnless they wrote all that the Apostlès preached Which you know we deny and the contrary is evident out of S. John as I sayd even now and hertofore proved at large Though it be also most true that they wrote all that was necessary to be written but then you must proue that all that was necessary to be believed or was preached was necessary to be written and not delivered by Gods vnwritten Word or Tradition as it was before any Scripture was extant which you will never be able to proue out of S. Irenaeus or Holy Scripture This Answer to the words of S. Irenaeus is confirmed out of the same Chapter where he saith Marcus Discipulus c Marke the Disciple and interpreter of Peter did also deliver to vs in writing those things which were preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul set downe in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him S. Paul And afterward John the Disciple of our Lord and who leaned vpon his brest did also write the Gospell while he remained at Ephesus in Asia Now it cannot be doubted but that S. Marke had many things from the mouth of S. Peter and S. Luke from S. Paul which they did not set downe in writing and yet you see it is sayd he S. Luke wrote Evangelium the Gospell and for S. John he professes that our Saviour did innumerable things which are not written and yet it is sayd edidi Evangelium he set forth the Gospell and the Apostles delivered interpretations of Scripture to the first Christians which are not set downe in writing as yourselfe confesse If any say S. Irenaeus calls Scripture the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith I answer Those words cannot be referred Scripturis to the Scriptures which is S. Irenaeus his word but to the Gospell as appeares by the Word futurum fundamentum columnam Fidei nostrae futurum seing we cannot say with congruity of Grammar Scripturis futurum ād therfore it must be referred to Evangelium Gospell Evangelium columnam Fidei nostrae futurum which Gospell is of a larger extent than Scripture though no man denyes Scripture to be in a good sense the Pillar and Fundation of truth Of the second answer which Bellar gives I haue spokē largely Chap 2. and shewed how egregiously you abuse him against his direct intention meaning and words 56 Thus you haue an answer to your N. 145. Where you say that at the most we can inferr from S. Irenaeus but only a suppositiue necessity of having an infallble Guide and that grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity herof and to them who haue and belieue the Scripture which is your assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary The Answer I say to this is given already for as I sayd S. Irenaeus speakes not by way of discourse or conjecture or as it were of prophecy what God would haue done in case the Apostles had left no Scriptures but he speakes of Tradition really existing wherby the want of Scripture might haue beene supplyed and which he expressly saith the Apostles delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches Yea he affirmes that de facto many Nations were converted by yielding assent to it and so de facto there was in that and will be in the like case a necessity of an infallible Tradition and a Living Guide And although that or the like occasion had not happened yet the thing being contingent Yea and in your particular Doctrine the Scripture being not a materiall Object of Faith which all are bound to belieue which in effect is as if it were not at all the Church could not be to seeke whensoever the occasion might happen but must be indued with a permanent Authority and infallibility for all events as it is contingent that for example theft be committed in a Commonwealth yet there is not only a suppositiue but an absolute necessity that the Commonwealth be indued with an absolute constant power to punish theeves c Neither ought you to say absolutly for as much as belongs to our question that it is a false supposition to suppose that Scripture had not beene written For besides that the Church of Christ was in being some yeares before any part of the New Testament was written it is all one that there be no Scripture and that we haue it not or haue no reason to belieue it yea or may reject it as you saie seing therfore many Nations were saved without knowledge of Scripture or any obligation to know it as S. Irenaevs supposes it alone is in order to vse and vs as if it had never beene written and so as I sayd inferrs an absolute and not only a suppositiue necessity of some Living Guide And this it seemes you did perceiue when you sayd that Charity Maintayned did not well to inferr an absolute necessity of a
with them if they kept their station vnto the very end of their lives Behold an if a condition If they kept their station which if it be in their free will not to doe as your if supposes it to be then according to your Divinity they might faile and all Promise made to them proue ineffectuall neither can we be certaine that de facto they haue not failed and fallen into errour in their preaching and writing Scripture Nay do you not teach and labour to proue that the Apostles even after the receiving of the Holy Spirit which you confess was promised to abide with them for ever that is say you for their whole life and that they should never want the spirits assistance vnto the very end of their lives did erre in a command clearely revealed to them about preaching the Gospell to Gentills How then was that Promise performed if it were absolute And if only conditionall you grant no more to them than to any other neither can we be certaine that they haue not erred in other things as you say they erred in that Your alledging some Texts to proue that the word ever may be taken for the whole time of a mans life is not to any purpose vnless you had also proved that it is so vnderstood in the place of which we speak Joan 14.16 And seing even by this example the same words are capable of different senses and that Protestants cannot possibly giue any Rule which Text is to be interpreted by what others we must conclude that Scripture alone cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith 84. But now in your N. 75. we find threates that you will work wonders and that we may not be so much overseene as to pass them without due reflection you say to Charity Maintayned This will seeme strang newes to you at first hearing and not farre from a prodigy But it is not strang that heere you doe that which you doe in divers other occasions that is impeach the infallibility of the Apostles and consequently depriue their preaching and writing and all Christian Religion of all certainty though I grant it to be very strang and a prodigy that notwithstanding this you will pretend to be a Christian and that your Book is approved by and published among Christians For besides what I noted even now about your conditionall promise made to the Apostles If they kept theyr station heere you declare clearely and at large that the Promise of which S. John speakes was appropriated to the Apostles as you speak and that it is not absolute but as you expressly say most clearly and expressly conditionall being both in the words before restrained to those only that loue God and keepe his commandements And in the words after flatly denyed to all whom the scriptures stile by the name of the world that is as the very Antithesis giues vs plainly to vnderstand to all wicked and wordly men Behold the place entire as it is set downe in your owne Bible If you loue me keepe my commandements and I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paracleâ—e that he may abide with your for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue And then speaking of the Pope you say We can haue no certainty that the Spirit of Truth is promised to him but vpon supposall that he performes the condition where vnto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expressly limited viz. That he loue God and keep his commandements and of this not knowing the Popes heart we can haue no certainty at all Doth not this interpretation and discourse clearly declare that we can haue no certainty of the Apostles infallibility because not knowing their hearts we can haue no certainty at all that when they preached and wrote they did loue God and keepe his commandements Besides in the doctrine of Protestants we cannot be certaine by certainty of Faith that the Apostles kept the commandemeÌ„ts except first we belieue Scripture and yet we caÌ„not belieue Scripture itself except first we belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to haue kept that condition of keeping the commandements Therfore we must belieue Scripture before we belieue the Apostles to keepe the commandements and be infallible and we must belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to keepe the commandements before we belieue Scripture which is an inextricable Circle and a contradiction implying finally that we belieue Scripture for it self which you confess no wise man will affirme and that the belief of Scripture should be cause of the belief of Scripture and the same thing be necessary to the first production of it self Wherefore you must either renounce this Interpretation of a conditionall Promise made yea as you expresly affirme Appropriated to the Apostles or els bid Scripture and all Christianity fare well And so you cannot haue certainty of this particular that God requires the saied condition of loue and Obedience 85. But to answer directly I say you miscite the words of S. John while you distinguish only by a comma If you loue me keepe my commandements from the following words And I will ask my Father and he shall giue you an other Paraclete whereas both in our and in the Protestants English Bible they are distinct Sections or Verses thus N. 15 If you loue me keep my commandements And then N. 16. And I will aâ—k the Father and he will giue you an other Paraelete Where it appeares that the condition is not If you loue me I will ask the Father and he will giue you c. as you set it downe and there vpon affirme that the Promise is restrayned to those only that loue God and keep his commandements but the condition or rather Assirmation or Consequence is this If you loue me keep my commandements And so the sense is very plain and perfect and the condition is terminated in the same N. 15. And that these words If you loue me keep my commandements render a perfect sense is manifest of it self and by the like Texts of Scripture as in the same Evangelist Cap. 15. N. 14. You are my friends if you doe the things that I command you and V. 10. If you keep my precepts you shall abide in my Loue. As contrarily the holy Ghost is promised absolutely in this C 14. V. 26. The Paraclete the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things And in the argument prefixed before this Chapter in the Protestants English Bible printed Ann 1622. it is sayed Christ N. 15. requireth loue and Obedience 16. Promiseth the Holy Ghost the comforter without expressing any dependance of the saied Promise V. 15. vpon loue and obedience V. 16. As also Joan 16.13 which Text is alledged both by Charity Maintayned and Dr. Potter it is saied without any condition when he the Spirit of Truth commeth he shall teach you all Truth And Matth 16.18 these words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her which both
containes aâ— necessary Points of meere belief Now whosoever ponders those Premisses with attention will see that your multitude and Aggregation of Syllogismes haue only this that they are more difficult to be vnderstood than answered 10. Your N. 24. is answered by only reading the whole N. 9. of Ch Ma you cite it N. 10. For it will be found that you are grounded only vpon your falsification of his words when you object No proposition is implied in any other which is not deducible from it But where doth Ch Ma say the contrary He expressly speaks N. 9. of points which by evident and necessary consequence may be deduced from Articles both clearly and particularly contained in the Creed and I hope you will not say that every proposition implied in an other is deducible from it by evident and necessary consequence 11. You vrge The Article of the Catholique Church wherin you will haue all implied implies nothing to any purpose of yours vnless out of meere favour we will grant the sense of it to be that the Church is infallible and that yours is the Church Answer Independently of the Creed we proue the infallibility of the Church and we must not gather it at the first from the meaning of this Article but we learne the sense of this Article from the Church pre-believed to be infallible And seing you profess to receiue the Creed and even Scripture from the Tradition of the Church you cannot be certaine that the contents therof are true vnless first you belieue the Church to be infallible Besides by the Church all ChristiaÌ„s vnderstaÌ„d a Congregation of Faithfull people capable of salvation and yourself teach that every errour in Faith vnrepented brings damnation How then can it be saied that the whole vniversall Church can erre in Faith But you doe very inopportunely talk whether Ours be the Church seing we speak only of the Church in generall abstracting for the present from that other Question though it be euident that if there were any true Church which delivered to Christians the Scripture and Creed when Luther appeared it must be the Roman and such as agreed with her 12. You goe forward and say to Charity Maintayned The Apostles intention was by your owne confession particularly to deliuer in the Creed such Articles of belief as were fittest for those tymes Now to deliver particularly and to deliver only implicitely to be delivered particularly in the Creed and only to be reduâ—â—ble to it I suppose are repugnances hardly reconciliable Answer I know not well what nor whom you can pretend to impugne For Ch Ma never saied that there are no Truths particularly expresed in the Creed yea N. 5. and 8. he named divers in particular expreseb in it but he only affirmed that all are not so expressed in partilular but some implicitely others reductiuè as he declares in those two Numbers Now that some things should be delivered particularly and other some only implicitely and other only reductively can be no irreconciliable repugnance seing in all good Logick repugnance must be in order to the same thing as it is no repugnance that one writer should procede honestly and speak to the purpose and an other doe quite the contrary 13. For answer to your N. 25.26.27.28.29 I haue attentively considered and compared with my observations all the Authorityes or sentences which you alledg out of Catholique Writers and find them to containe no difficulty not precluded and answered by those observations And who knowes not that all Catholiques belieue that all declarations of Generall Councells concerning the Creed and all other points of Faith are necessarily to be belieued to say nothing of the other observations But I must be still intreating the Reader to reade in Charity Maintayned his N. 10.11.12.13.14.15 which you confusedly huddle vp togeather 14. In your N. 30. you grant as much as can be desired by vs to proue that to alledg the Creeds containing all necessary and Fundamentall points is impertinent to make either both Catholiques and Protestants or all Protestants capable of salvation though they belieue the Creed yet differ in other revealed Truths Thus you write in order to the N. 10. of Char Ma Neither is there any discord betweene this Assertion of your doctors and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the Points which the Councell of Trent defines For Protestants and Papists may both hold that all points of belief necessary to be knowen and believed are summed vp in the Creed And yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to belieue whatsoever other points they either know or belieue to be revealed by God For the Articles which are necessary to be knowen that they are revealed by God may be very few and yet those which are necessary to be believed when they are revealed and knowen to be so may be very many These words shew that Prorestants do but delude poore soules when they tell them that all Protestants haue the substance of Faith because they belieue the Creed when in the meane tyme they disagree in other points revealed by God and yourself say els where that as things now stand there is the like necessity to belieue all points contained in Scripture as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And therfore it can litle availe Protestants to agree in the Creed which yet they do not if we regard the sense and not the meere sound of the words while they disagree in so many other points belonging to Faith The Truth is This grant and declaration of yours might well haue freed me from answering all the rest which you haue in this Chapter and whatsoever els you proue or disproue cannot be against the substance of that which Charity Maintayned affirmed in his fourth Chapter which treates this Question about the Creed 15. You pretend in your N. 31. to answer the N. 11. of Charity Maintayned but you omitt his discourse about the Decalogue of the commandements to shew a simili or paritate that it is not necessary that the Creed coÌ„taine all necessary points seing what is not expressed in it may be knowen by other meanes It will not be amiss to set downe the words of Ch Ma which are Who is ignorant that Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstracts are not intended to specify all particulars of that science or subject to which they belong For as the Creed is sayd to containe all points of Faith so the decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may terme them which concerne Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so vnderstood as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice vnlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandements For to omitt the precepts of receaving Sacraments which belong to practise or manners and yet are not contained in the Decalogue there are many sinnes even against the Law of nature and light of reason which are not contained in the ten Commandements
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
Maintayned sayd not so much as he might haue sayd of Potters assertion and therfor was far enough from doing him any wrong 48. Thirdly Seing that one must not at first be referred to Scripture as we haue proved nor to Generall Councells which Dr. Potter says may erre weakely and so be deceaved and wilfully and so deceaue nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all togeather as you grant the Doctour sayes what remaines but that he must deale a parte with every particular member of the Church Which being also impossible as is clear of it selfe and when you seeke to proue it you labour for your Adversary who sayeth the very same thing it remaines that all the wayes which Potter can propose to a man desirous to saue his soule are not only ineffectuall but impossible also and only chalke out a way to desperation and that He and other Protestants must haue patience to be told this truth that they must not wonder if contradictories be deduced from their Assertions which they must often vary even against their wills Ch Ma never intended to make or not make a difference betweene the vniversall Church and the whole Church militant but only Pag. 137. cites the Doctours words as he findes them and proves that they cannot serue for the effect of quieting an afflicted soule not regarding whether those different words which he vseth signifie any different thing or noe 49. Fourthly Seing in pursuit of some good and infallible ground wheron to settle Divine Faith Potter can admit none but the Scripture or the vniversall Church and that Scripture cannot instruct vs with certainty independently of the Church as we haue demonstrated nor that the whole Church can be consulted it remaines only that he must wish one to finde out some who believes all fundameÌ„tall points and follow him and that then the first question to passe betweene them should be to know whether he knows all such points and if this cannot be knowne it is cleare the Doctour can giue no satisfaction to any considering man desirous to know the truth It is pretty that you tell vs the Doctour in all his Booke gives no such Answer as this procure to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of Faith as if Ch Ma had pretended to relate a history and not only to tell the Reader what Potter must be forced to answer according to his grounds Though I grant he will by doing so be necessitated to contradict both Truth and Himselfe And you will never be able to shew but that Potter must make such answers as Ch ma exprest if the Doctor will be faithfull to his owne grounds Your discourse about probabilities and even wagers is impertinent both because we deny that indeed Dr. Potters opinion about the Creed hath any probability at all and because Ch Ma speakes only of probabilities and even wagers which is a good comparison seing a thing very probable doth not hinder but that the contradictory may be very probable and so be eaven or equall one to an other aÌ„d your talking of probability in the highest degree is your owne addition or fiction and not the Doctors Assertion as may be seene in his Pag. 241. and yourself expresly confess N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194. that he affirmed it only to be very probable that the Creed containes all necessary points of those which you call Credenda What you write so often about the vncertainty that one is a Pope hath been answered at large 50. Fiftly Who can deny but that whosoever desires to be saved and knowes that to obtaine salvation it is necessary to belieue explicitly all fundamentall points will instantly judge it necessary to know what those points be as de facto Ch. Mist vrged to haue a Catalogue of them Now if to satisfy this demand Dr. Potter gives vs no other answer but only some Definitions and Descriptions or Explications of the name Fundamentall without specifying what they are in particular and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man what can I helpe that Or who can blame Ch Ma for having sayd as much as Dr. Potters Booke could enable him to say Neither hath he patched vp any thing out of the Doctours Booke which he the Doctor is not obliged to grant according to his owne grounds as I haue sayd 51. Sixthly Seing every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamentall it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall You say Dr. Potter would haue answered it is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall But by your leaue this businesse cannot be dispatched to soone For by occasion of your Answer I must make some demands whether every one is obliged to belieue or know explicitly those points of the Creed which are not fundâ—mentall To say every one is bound were to make them properly Fundamentall For we haue heard Potter saying Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith If one be not obliged to belieue explicitely those points of the Creed which are not fundamentall then I am not bound to know the Creed that I may know them Perhaps some may say I am obliged to know the Creed because it containes fundamentall points which I am bound to know expresly and so I shall at least per accidens and by consequence be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall This Answer must suppose that I am obliged vnder damnation to know that Symbol which we call the Creed of the Apostles and seing Protestants professe that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture alone they must shew out of some expresse evident text of Scripture such a command which you know is impossible to be done since Scripture never mentions any such thing as the Apostles Creed and therfor one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamentall in vertue of a precept to know the Creed seing Protestants cannot belieue any command obliging men to know the Creed c. Besides All the Arguments which proue that the Creed was composed by the Apostles or that it containes all fundamentall points must be grounded vpon the Authority of the Church which according to Potter and other Protestants may erre in points not fundamentall and none of them affirmes that it is a fundamentall point which all vnder damnation are bound explicitely to belieue that the Apostles composed the Creed or that it containes all fundamentall points and then men cannot be sure that all points contained in it are true and much lesse can they be obliged to belieue explicitly by an act of Faith every Article therof according to the grounds of Protestants Moreover suppose one were perswaded that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true yet the arguments which Potter brings
Truly I cannot imagine that any man would haue dreamed that Dr. Potter did not intend by those interrogations to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall points whether we consider the only question in hand or the clear connexion and thread of his words as I haue shewed and that all his interrogations tended to make good that no Christian can be obliged to belieue more as necessary then the Apostles believed to be necessary of which necessary points you say N 65. the Creed is a full comprehension and consequently that he intended to proue so much by his interrogations though I grant he faild in his proofes and performance of his intention which he perceiving did afterward seeke to corroborate them with other reasons which consideration beside what hath been sayd doth evidently declare that in his interrogations he intended to perswade vs that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith For let vs suppose with you that his purpos was only to proue that no Christian is bound to belieue more then the Apostles believed and not that no Christian is bound to belieue more then the 〈◊〉 with what connexion or sense could Potter say immediatly after those interrogations All that can be replyed to this discourse is that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed which 〈◊〉 all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the Apostles and the Church of their times in giving it this name do◠they not plainely tell vs that the Summe and Substance of their Credenda is comprized in it If Potter in his interrogations meant only to proue that no Christian is bound to belieue more thē the Apostles believed how did he imagine that it could be replyed against that discourse ād those interrogations of his that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed if I say his discourse according to your interpretation aymed at no such matter Or to what purpos doth the Doctour as soone as he had sayd that nothing could be replye to his discoursed except that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed instantly set himselfe to proue that the Creed containes the Summe and substance of the Credenda of the Apostles and Church of their times As if by proving this that reply were confuted and his Interrogations made good which yet had been good if they were vnderstood of the whole extent of the Apostles beliefe though it were supposed that the Creed containes not all fundamentall points of Faith For whether it contained them or no it is most true that no Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed of things contained and not contained in the Creed Looke now whether I may not retort the words which you direct against Charity Maintayn Consider I pray a litle better and then I hope you will acknowledge that there was no Petitio principij in Dr. Potter but rather Ignoratio Elencht in you 59. You doe but loose time in proving that S. Paul Act 20. spoke to the Pastours yet that he spoke of what he taught not only them but also the Laity as well as them And you wonder Charity Maintayned should read the Text so negligently as not to obserue it Ch. Ma. never sayd that the Apostle spoke to the Pastors only or that he instructed them only but that the sayd words were directed particularly to the Pastors or Governours of the Church and yourselfe grant the Apostle did all these things of which he speakes to the Pastours among the rest nay aboue the rest ād therfor C Ma did clearly deduce that the Doctour could not collect from those words that the Apostle spoke of things necessary for all sortes of persons to belieue seing Pag 244. He acknowledges that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops and Priests to whome is committed the government of the Church then in vulgar Laicks as Charity Maintayned observes and consequently he could not gather out of those words what points be necessary for all and much lesse that all necessary points are contained in the Creed In a word the Apostle spoke of more then all are obliged to belieue and more then is contained in the Creed and therfor Potter could not prove by those words that if it were necessary for every one to belieue more than is contained in the Creed every one must belieue more or as much as the Pastors are obliged to belieue 60. No wonder if those Reasons of Dr. Potter which you mention N 74. were not particularly answered being so clearly false as they are answered by a meere denyall For that the Ancient Church appointed her infants to be instructed for matters of simple beliefe only in the Creed and admitted her Catechumens vnto baptisme and strāgers to her communion vpon their only profession of the Creed is evidently false For how many notorious heretiks pretēd to belieue the Creed Which therfor alone without other knowledge and circūstances of the persons c. could not be sufficiēt to admit strangers into the communion of the Church and who knows not that Catechumens are instructed in many more points of Faith then are exprest in the Creed Infants if you speake properly cannot be instructed in the Creed or any other part of Christian Faith Their Patrini surely know more points of Faith then the Creed alone But why did you not confute the answer which you confesse Ch Ma gives to Potters Fourth Reason about the letters called formatae which containe more then the Creed as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Par 2. P 171. and it will be found that you had reason to dissēble his discourse which proves that more was required to be belieued then only the Creed as appeares even by Potter himselfe speaking of those letters Pag 224. in these words If in those letters he did professe entirely to adhere to the Catholick Creeds his profession and person was accepted as sound and Orthodox Wher you see the beliefe of more Creeds was required then of the Apostles Creed only 61. Although the rest of the numbers in this Chapter containe no particular difficulty which may not be solved by our former grounds and therfor might well be omitted especially seeing you and the Doctor grant as much as is more then sufficient for our maine purpos that in vaine Protestants alledge their beliefe of the Creed to shew that they agree in all Fundamentall points of Faith and it appeares very cleare of it selfe seing it containes not all essentiall points of Christian practice yet I will cast an eye on your Numbers 75.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84 as they lye in order Divers Points which haue connexion or were circumstances of the Articles set downe in the Creed might haue been exprest besides those which are specified in it and therfor Ch. Ma. may still aske why some such are exprest and others are not and you must finally
over all the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinks is as strang as that a King of England for twenty fine yeares should do no Act of Regality nor receiue any one acknowledgment of it 35. Answer 1. I would ask how you can assure vs that S. Peter exercised no one act of authority over any one of the Apostles vnless first you suppose not only that all points of Faith but also all matters of fact are registred in Scripture which I hope you will not say S. Luke in the Acts having set downe but a few things and of fewe 2. If you belieue Scripture you cannot doubt but that in divers occasions S. Peter exercised Actions declaring him to haue an ordinary Charg and Power proper to him It was hee who spoke first in the Apostles Councell in Hierusalem who proposed the Election of S. Matthias in warning Christians that in the writings of S. Paul there were things difficult to be vnderstood which in my opinyon deserves to be noted declaring that the charg of the whole Church was committed to him even in things relating to other Apostles who is still named in the first place and named in such manner as the rest are named as belonging to him or of his family which appeares Mark 1. Luc 8. 9. Act 2. 5. It was Hee who was wont to speak for the rest and so S. Cyrill vpon those words Joan 6. Domine ad quem ibimus saieth Per vnum qui praeerat omnes respondent But of the authority and prerogatives of S. Peter Bellarmine writes at large de Rom Pontifice Lib 1. Cap 17.18.19.20.21.22 to whom I referr the Reader 3. The Apostles being dead or dispersed no wonder if S. Peter either had no occasion of exercising Iurisdiction over them or at least there was not occasion of writing it for posterity Besides all the Apostles having jurisdictiō over the whole world which in them was extraordinary but ordinary in S. Peter and being particularly assisted by the Holy Ghost for the due performance of their office no wonder if S. Peter had no occasion of exercising his Power in order to them who wanted neither Power nor knowledg nor will to correspond to the vocation of an Apostle which consideration confutes ād retorts your similitude of a King who certainly would not be solicitous to exercise any act of regality over those who had as great Power as hee himself ād who he was assured would make the best vse of their Power if we imagine any such case in a Kingdom as de facto it was true in the Apostles of whom S. Cyprian saieth De Vnitate Ecclesiae Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego tibi dico inquit quia tu es Petrus super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferorum non vincent eam Et tibi dabo claves regnicoelorum quae ligaveris super terram erunt ligata in coelis quaecumque solveris super terram erunt soluta in coelis Et iterum eidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit Pasce Oves meas Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam illi pascendas mandat oves suas Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat dicat Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos accipite Spiritum Sanctum Si cui remiseritis peccata remittentur illi Si cui retinueritis tenebuntur tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret vnam cathedram constituit vnitatis ejusdem originē ab vno incipientē sua authoritate disposuit Hoc erant vtique caeteti Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia cathedra vna monstretur Behold how the Apostles had jurisdiction over the whole world though in a different manner from that according to which it was conferred vpon S. Peter to descend to his Successours 36. Secondly You object As strang it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly and that the Apostles should be so ignorant that S. Peter was Head of the rest as to question which of them should be the greatest after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue wherof S. Peter is pretended to haue been made their Head yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentils exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them Answer It is more strange that you should make this objection who teach that the Apostles even after the receiving of the Holy Ghost having had an expresse revelation and commād from our Saviour were doubtfull whether they ought to preach to the Gentills For if they might erre in Faith and practice notwithstanding so direct a revelation and precept how can you wonder that before the receiving of the Holy Ghost they might contend among themselves which of them were the greater although our Saviour had promised to build his Church vpon S. Perer and why do you not say against yourself it is strang that you so many ages after should know the Apostles did erre in that matter Besides Bellarmine de Romano Pontifice Lib 1. cap 28. demonstrates both by testimonyes of Fathers and Scriptures that S. Peter was not with the other Apostles in that contention of theirs which of them was the greater and so cannot be sayd to haue been ignorant of his owne authority which our Saviour had promised Matth 16. and actually conferred Joan 21. Yea perhaps the Apostles did propose to themselves some temporall kinde of glory or kingdome as the mother of S. James and S. John did when she petitioned our Saviour that one of her sonnes might sit at the right hand the other at the left in his Kingdome and did not thinke of being Head of the spirituall Kingdome of Christs Militant Church According to which consideration it is no wonder If our Saviour should not bring them out of their errour by telling them S. Peter was the man seing indeed he was no such man in order to a temporall Kingdome but rather confirmed it by saying the Kings of the Gentils exercise authority over them but it should not be soe among them Which sacred advice had been also good and necessary though their contention had been about their preeminence in the Church which to seeke ambitiously is evill though the thing to which they pretend be good And seing our Saviour was afterward to commit the charge of the whole Church to S. Peter in expresse termes by a triple injunction of Pasce oves meas Feed my sheep Joan 21. his divine wisdome thought fit Matth 18. to giue them that holy
his place and depending on him was not head of the Church while S. Peter did liue therefore he could not be his successor in that vniuersall power after S. Peters death Neither do you so much as offer to proue that S. Peter ever relinquished his being the particular Bishop of Rome and therefore how can you say the Bishop of Rome did succeed S. Peter while he was living seing no man can succeed a Bishop while that Bishop lives and is still Bishop of that particular Church in which an other is pretended to succeed him 42. Your Argument That as in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first is to giue it the right name a nothing or a meere equivocation in the Metaphor of a foundation whereas a Foundation in our case signifies a Head or chiefe and if you hold it incongruous that foundations in this sense should succeed foundations you must say that no King Prince or magistrate can without incongruity succeed one an other Besides The Apostles were Foundations of the Church by their Preaching and Teaching for not all of them wrote and they were foundations of the Church before any one of thē wrote and I hope you will not say it is incongruous that Preachers and Teachers should haue Successors Was not Judas an Apostle and was not S. Matthias chosen not only after him but expressly for him or in his place or to succeede him For so S. Peter Act 1. applies that place of Scripture Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter and the prayer of the Christiās was Ostende quem elegeris ex his duobus vnum accipere locum ministerij hujus Apostolatus de quo praevaricatus est Judas But what if your very ground or foundation That in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations be false as certainly it is For if you suppose the first foundation to faile or be taken away may an other be substituted and succeed it The Apostles were Foundations but being mortall they faild and needed successours to supply their absence and so your similitude returnes directly vpon yourself If you will follow the metaphor of a foundation in all respects how do you say S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the foundations of it seing you may saie in building it is incongruous that a foundation should laie a foundation Will you haue it laie itself Why do you not also say that as the foundation is vnder the building so the Apostles and all Pastors Prelats and Superiours are inferiour to the rest of the Church It seemes though the Scripture should be vnderstood as indeed it ought that Christ intended that S. Peters successours should haue jurisdiction over the whole Church you will controll God himself and say It is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation You say els where vntruly that Ch. Ma. trifles about the word foundation which you confess to be metaphoricall and ambiguous and yet heere you ground your whole Argument vpon that metaphor ill applied as beside what hath bene sayd not only the Apostles but Prophets also are called in Scripture foundations super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum and will you except that in a building it is incongruous to haue more than one firme and perfect foundation as certainly the Apostles were But I spend too much tyme in confuting such toyes as these 43. Your N. 101.102 haue bene answered already The Donatists for the cause of their separation pretēded not only that the men frō whome they separared were defiled with the contagion of the Traditors as you say but also that they erred in Faith in believing that Baptisme might be conferred by Heretiques to omit other things Your calumnie about a picture hath beene confuted heretofore Your N. 104. containes no difficulty which may not be answered by former grounds 44. To your N. 105. I answer that seing Potter accounts the errours of the Roman Church to be damnable to such as are not excused by Ignorance Ch. Ma. had reason to say the Doctour condemnes all learned Catholiques who least of all men can plead Ignorance It is evidently true that as Ch. Ma. P. 205.206 saith these two Propositions cannot consist in the vnderstanding of any one who considers what he saies After due examination I judg the Roman errours not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable and yet I judg that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them For according to true reason one is to judg of things as indeed they are in themselves and therefore if in reason I judg them not to be fundamentall in themselves I must in reason conceyue that they are notfundamentall being held by mee neither doth there in this case intervene any lye seing one professeth that not to be damnable which he holds not to be damnable But where doth Ch. M. say as you cite him These Assertions the Roman errours are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errours to hold and confess them are absolutely inconsistent For it is impossible that any man can hold that which he knowes to be an errour because even by knowing it to be an error he holds it not but dissents from it He saieth only that it cannot be damnable to hold an error not damnable which is very true but saieth not that one can hold an errour which he knowes to be an errour 45. You make Ch. Ma. speak in this ridiculous manner to Protestants If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed ād deposed by judging those errors not damnable and then you triumph and spend many words in proving the very same thing which Ch. Ma. never denied but expressly affirmed namely that the errours of the Roman Church vpon a fals supposition that she had any were not damnable These be his words in the sayed N 206. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedie but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you dayly affoard to such other Protestants as you tearme brethren whome you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictorie propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Is this to say If you erred in thinking that your Church holds errours this errour might be rectified by judging these errours not damnable Is it not directly the contrary and supposes errours though they be not damnable Or doe you thinke that Ch. Ma. holds Protestants not to
c. 15 n. 24 p. 903 Luthers Tenet that to hold an obligation of keeping the commandements is to deny Christ and abolim Faith J. n. 25 p. 19 That lawes and good workes are more to be shunned then sinnes Jbid His desperate remorse for leaving the church c. 7. n. 14. p. 468. and c. 14. n. 50. p. 882. His division from the whose church proved out of Protestants c. 7. n. 116. p. 537. His shamless falsification of Rom 3.28 and I hill conscienceless endeavour to make it good c. 11. n. 16. p. 6â—9 M Maximinianus Patriarche of Constantinople his testimony for the Principality of the Romane Church c. 15. n. 33. p. 914. 915. Merit by good workes excludes not grace c. 15. n 17. p. 800. Milenaryes Doctrine never decreed nor delivered by the church c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. and c. 15. n 31. p. 911. c. I hill imposture vpon S. Justine Martyr concerning it confuted by testimonyes of Protestants Ibi. Miracles perpetually wrought by the church doe not only confirme some particular point but all her Doctrine and to say the contrary is injurious â—s God and makes the Doctrine of the Apostles and of all the church vnfitt to convert people c. 5. n. 7. p. 433. 434. Shewed by Scripture to be proofes of true Faith n. 9. p. 435. To deny theÌ„ is to oppose our Saviour and his Apostles and to vndermine all Christianity n. 8. p. 434. VVrought before Protestants were dreamt of in confirmation of particular points in which they disagree from Catholiques Ibid Yet they are not necessary for every point of christian doctrine c. 3. n. 33. p. 301. Acknowledged by Luther to haue been in the church through all ages for these 1500. yeares c 5. n. 4. p. 429. By them haue been converted Jewes and Gentles yet cannot move Protestants c. 3. n. 76. p. 338. Chill holds that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men n 76. p. 337 and c. 2 n. 186 p. 261. N Nature to conserue itselfe embraceth by instinct great naturall difficultyes as less evills then its owne destruction c. 1 n. 114. p. 119. To affirme that it is as easy to obey the Ghospell as to performe what the common instinct of nature commands is iniurious to our Saviours merits Ibid. As natuâ—â—â— instinct for its naturall conservatioÌ„ is cerâ—â—â—â—â— aÌ„d invariable so must the light of Faith be for supernaturall conservation Ibid. Divers vnderstandings of things Necessary to salvation c. 2. n. 1. p. 122. seq Notes of credibility authorize the writers before their writings c. 5. n. 1. p. 426. seq and n. 5. p. 431. 432. They authorize the church independently of Scripture and fall primarily vpon her not vpon Scripture Jbid. VVhat church they authorize is to be infallibly beleeved in all points n. 6. p. 433. God of his goodness could not permitt them be found as they are in the catholique Romane church if her Faith could be false n. 7. p. 433. and n. 10. 11. 12. p. 436. 437. These notes cannot be pretended by Protestantâ— and other Sectaryes n. 4. p. 429. 430. O Objects are not obsure evident certainâ— probable c. in theÌ„selves but only so denominated extrinsecally by the acts to which those affections are proper c. 15. n. 6. p. 888. 889. Observations to aÌ„swear many of Chil. objections about the creed c. 13. n. 8 p. 793. 794. Aprobable Opinion may be safely followed in things necessary for salvation only necessitate Praecepti but not in such as are necessitane Medij c. 16. n. 1. p. 933. and n. 16. p. 941. P In case of perplexity what is to be done c. 7. n. 132. p. 551 seq and c. 12. n 57. p. 751. and n 59. p 753. A speculatiue Perswasion differs much from a practicall c. 14. n. 46. p. 879. S. Peter and the Apostles vindicated from the errour imputed to them by Chill c. 3. n. 34. 35. p. 303. 304. S Peters Primacie over all the Apostles c. 14. n. 35 p. 871. seq He was not preseÌ„t wheÌ„ the Apostles contended who was the greater n. 36. p. 873. His name Peter is a title of great honour n. 39. p. 874. his power over all the church descended to his successors n. 41. p 875. seq Points necessary and principall rightly declared c. 2. n. 128 p. 218. 219. the most points of catholique Religion held by some Protestants or other n. 91. 92. p. 193 194. 195. alibi Those by which catholiques are made most odious to the vulgar held by chiefest Protestant Doctours n. 92. p. 195. The Pope held infallible by Potter if he hath but the assistance which the high Priest of the Jewes had c. 11. n. 36. p. 673. This saying of Potter falsly and foolishly interpred by Chill n. 39. 40. p. 675. many disparities betwixt the Church and the Synagogue n. 38. p. 674. seq The Primacie of the Church of Rome is de Jure Divino c. 14. n. 31. p. 868. It is acknowledged by Protestants to be accordinge to order wisely appointed and necessary to be retained yea that no common government can be hoped for without it c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. falsly put 167. aÌ„d n. 60. p. 496. Profession of an errour if it it be meerly exexternall is a less sinne then internall Heresie n. 133. falsly put 123. p. 554. By Prophesye is not only vnderstood the fortellinge of things but also the interpretation of Scripture and in both senses is found in the Church c. 12. n. 81. p. 769. 770. which hath alwayes had such Prophets n. 100. p. 783 An indefinite Proposition in matters of Faith is equivalent to an vniversall c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. Protestants were not first forced by excomunication to separate from the Church but their precedeÌ„t obstinat separation forced the Church to excommunicate them c. 7 n. 62. p. 497. seq For this separation they could haue no grownd n. 169. p. 584. the learned of them taxing of ignoâ—ance and absurdity those that deny salvation to Romane Catholiques n. 151. p. 573. Nor can they haue any evidence against Catholique Doctrine n. 52. p. 490. seq Whose objections were answeared longe before Protestants appeared in the world n. 59. p. 495. Their arguments to proue that by Scripture alone the Articles of Faith are to be knowne fully answeared c. 2. n. 57. p. 159. seq alibi Learned Protestants confesse that the Fathers agree with vs against them c. 2. n. 90. p. 192. They make their owne reason not Scripture as they pretend the Rule of Faith and judge of controversies c. 11. n. 61. p. 692. Whence they must needs haue a Chimericall Church patched vp of as many members repugnant in Faith as are their fancies concerning all sorts of Articles c. 13. n. 35. p. 815. seq Hence Grotius one of the learnedest of them despaired of their vnion except vnder the Pope c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. For once devided from the Roman Church they must