both may be part of the Catholick Church Protestants as wâ— have seen in the former Chapter say that aâ—â— Christian Congregations are parts of the Catholick Church as well as we Roman Catholicks Thiâ— assertion they ground upon the signification of the worâ— Catholick which is as much to say as Vniversal In the saâ— me sense they explicate Catholick Tradition to be onelâ— that which is contradicted by any Christian Church According to this opinion no Congregation of Christian can be Hereticks because Hereticks must be obstinate against the Doctrine of the Universall or Catholick Church but no Christians can be obstinate against thâ— Doctrine of the Catholick or Universall Church seeinâ— themselves are part of it and they can not be obstinate against themselves or their owne Tenets and Doctrine therefore none can be Hereticks This absurd and hereticall sequele is a sufficient refutation of the Protestant principle and their explication of the word Catholick 2 But let us prove directly that neither all Christians nor any two Churches dissenting in their testimonies concerning whatsoever matters of Faith can be the Catholick Church My proofe is this The testimony of the Catholick Church concerning what is pretended to be revealed or not revealed by God must oblige all persons who are informed of it to believe what it saith and proposeth But if all Christians or any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies suppose Roman Catholicks and Protestants be parts of the Catholick Church the testimony thereof can not oblige any sober person to believe what both say and propose First because one Church contradicts the other and its impossible to believe contradictions at one and the same instant Secondly when witnesses do not agree in their testimonies if they be of equall authority no man is obliged to believe either side but rather is bound in prudence to suspend his judgement Therefore if the Catholick Church be composed of all Congregations and Churches of Christians or of any two Churches not agreeing in their testimonies concerning matters of Faith no man is obliged to believe the testimony of the Catholick Church but rather to suspend his judgement and credit nothing which sequele is absurd and contrary to the Doctrine not onely of Catholicks but also of Protestants Therefore the Catholick Church must not be all Congregations of Christians or any two dissenting but one onely Congregation of persons who agree in one Faith CHAP. VII VVhether the testimony of the Catholick Church be infallible not onely as Protestants terme them in fundamentall but also in not fundamentall articles of Faith 1 THough we Catholicks say that all articles of Faith if once sufficiently proposed are in one sense fundamentall because under paine of damnation they must be believed yet in ananother sense we admit a distinction betweene fundamentall and not fundamentall articles of Faith Fundamentall articles may be called such as no ignorance of them can excuse men from damnation for not being believed Not fundamentalls may be called such articles as if proposed must be believed but if not proposed sufficiently the ignorance of them is excusable 2 But whether these articles be both called fundamentall or onely the first sort of them our controversie with Protestants is the same and the question is not set here out of its proper place because the resolution of it is necessary to answer an objection which Protestants make against the Doctrine of the former Chapter All Christians say they do agree in fundamentall points of Faith as in the Trinity Incarnation c. what great matter is it if they agree not in other things of little importance without the knowledge and sufficient proposall whereof they may be saved as Purgatory Transubstantiation c Why should we be obliged to believe things that are not absolutely necessary for salvation especially seeing Roman Catholick Divines do not deny that ignorance of not fundamentalls is not damnable Therefore all Christians though dissenting in not fundamentalls may be called Catholicks and the universall Church because they agree in all necessary articles of Catholick Religion and though their testimonies do not agree in Purgatory v.g. being an article of Faith why should their disagreement in that petty point invalid their testimony concerning the mystery of the Trinity Incarnation and other fundamentall articles 3 This discourse and objection of Protestants hath damned many a soule because they did not examine the truth of it as they ought But to declare the fallacy of it something must be said of the Churches infallibility Most Protestants do grant that the testimony of the Church is infallible in proposing the fundamentall articles of Christian Religion as in delivering Scripture to be Gods Word and in declaring the mystery of the Trinity c. because Christian and Catholick Faith must admit of no doubts concerning the truth of fundamentalls and if the Church be not infallible in proposing those to us we must necessarily doubt of their truth for though we doubt not that whatsoever God said is true yet we can not but doubt whether he revealed or meant any such thing as the mystery of the Trinity or Incarnation if we do not believe that the Church is infallible in proposing the said mystery God therefore in his Providence can not permit the Church to erre or deceive us in fundamentalls seeing its necessary for our salvation not to doubt of the truth of fundamentall mysteries but if the Church may erre in proposing them we can not but doubt of their truth This reason say Protestants can not be applyed to not fundamentalls because they are not absolutely necessary for salvation and our salvation is the onely motive that God had to make the Church infallible in proposing articles of Religion Therefore none is bound to believe that the Church is infallible in not fundamentalls 4 If the onely motive that God had to make the Catholick Church infallible were our salvation this discourse of Protestants might have some colour of truth but Gods motive in all his actions is not onely our salvation but in first place his owne honour and glory There is nothing concerns Gods honour more then that whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as revealed by him be credited by us without the least doubt whether the matter be great or of little importance Therefore the Churches infallibility and our obligation of believing it ought not to be measured by the greatnesse importance or absolute necessity of the matter proposed in order onely to our salvation but also by the sufficiency of the proposall in order to Gods honour and veracity If a matter not absolutely necessary for salvation be as sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God as the mystery of the Trinity the obligation is as great of believing the one without any doubt as the other The reason is cleare because there is as great an injury done to God by denying or doubting of his veracity and revelation in a small matter as in a great In believing
because they choose to themselves amongst all articles which the Catholick Roman Church proposed to the first Authors of ProtestaÌ„cy Luther Cranmer Calvin c. before the pretended Reformation what they think fit and most probable All the rest though equally proposed to them by the testimony of the said Roman Church as Divine Revelation they reject as fabulous or apocryphall because it suites not with their liberty fancy and manners Hence it is that all Hereticks are damned by their owne proper judgement and opinion for he that makes choice of some articles and rejects others when all are equally testified to be revealed by God doth not believe the very articles he chooseth because God revealed them but because he is of opinion that God revealed them and not the others which he rejects not regarding the testimony of the Church proposing all equally as revealed A Jew believes that the Messias is not come because he thinks God revealed Christ not to be the Messias and yet his Faith is not supernaturall Protestants therefore may believe what they please because they think God revealed it and yet their Faith be neither Christian nor supernaturall their owne persuasion alone is not sufficient 〈◊〉 supernaturalize their beliefe The difference between historicall and Christian or supernaturall beliefe is not that Christian beliefe alone hath for its object supernaturall mysteries a man may believe the mystery of the Trinity or Incarnation with as historicall a beliefe as the history of Iulius Cesar The difference consists in this that the understanding doth meet with so great and manifest difficulties in crediting what is sufficiently proposed as Divine Revelation to be really revealed and true that it may appear to any indifferent and rationall man God doth concurre more particularly to the assent of what is proposed as Christian Faith then he doth to the assent we give stories Chronicles or any other human history though containing never so strange and extraordinary events To believe not onely strange and to the sense of man improbable things but also to believe them with a prudent beliefe not out of ignorance or misinformation without the least doubt or suspicion of falshood is so much above the way and faculty of nature that the Faith whereby this is done must of necessity be an extraordinary and supernaturall gift of Gods omnipotency Now let us examine whether Protestants do so straine their understanding by their beliefe even of supernaturall mysteries that it may be evidently called an extraordinary gift of Gods omnipotency To be brief I do say that Protestants have no more supernaturall Faith in believing the Trinity or Incarnation c then in believing any strange or extraordinary accident that Iohn Stow recounts in his Chronicles and consequently their Faith is meerly historicall My reason is this Protestants believe as articles of Faith onely those points wherein all Christian though hereticall Churches agree to be clearly contained in Scripture or to be delivered by Tradition of the said Churches Whatsoever is controverted amongst Christians they look upon it as not necessary to be believed It s true most of them tell you they believe the Apostles Creed others come as far as Saint Athanasius his Symbol some are pleased to admit of the 4. first generall Councells The motive of this their beliefe is not because the true Catholick Church testifieth that God revealed what they believe but because no Christian Church or Sect wherewith they converse â—oth contradict any of these points Such things as are contradicted or controverted by any are not believed as articles of Faith If this be not meerly historicall and human belief there is none at all What man is there whether Turck or Jew that doth not believe after this manner whatsoever is reported by many and condicted by none whose authority hath any weight in his opinion The reason why Turcks stick to their Alcoran and the Jews to the Law of Moyses notwithstanding all our contradictions and testimonies of the one being wicked and the other abolished is that they have a prejudice against us Christians they value not any thing we say in matters of Faith If Protestants had not the same prejudice by their education against Turcks that Turcks have against Christians they would make the Catholick Church yet more universall then at the present they do the Alcoran perhaps should be part of the Bible those onely should be articles of Faith wherein both agree not onely all Hereticks but Turcks should be members and part of the Catholick Church Many are of opinion that the liberty of life which Protestants have warrante by their new Religion is the strongest motive of their obstinacy in it and of propagating the same Though this be true in some persons it can not be applyed to all Protestants some of them give the Devil his due have morality and come near the old Pagan Philosophers in their life and conversation But there is not one amongst all the Protestants of the world especially of the English Church or Common prayer men that is not inveagled and carried away with a liberty of believing onely that as an article of Faith which is not contradicted by any Christian Congregation or Church however so different from his owne Why should Papists saith every Protestant impose unnecessary articles of Faith upon us why should any one be obliged to believe what is not clear in Scripture There is no liberty more earnestly sought after then that of the understanding all men are naturally taken with it no captivity is more troublesome then that of proper judgement its impossible without a supernaturall favour and grace of God to bâ—dle the inclination and ordinary course of that faculty which of its own nature is so curious and vehement that it can not be quiet untill it knowes the reason of what we heare To believe is to captivate and confine the understanding to a dungeon of darknesse Not to believe is to leave it at its own choice and liberty this last is naturall and agreable to our inclination and by consequence is no proper effect of a supernaturall power It s impossible therefore that it should be Christian Faith or a supernaturall gift of God In this sense the way of heaven is straight because Christian and not historicall beliefe is the foundation or first step to salvation we must force our selves to it by straining our understanding to believe and not give it liberty to accept and reject what we please making our selves Judges of all Controversies concerning Scripture and Christian Religion Let the negative articles of Protestancy be examined as Protestants they have no affirmative and we shall finde that nature and not grace leads them to that liberty which they assume to themselves of shaking off not onely the yoke of interior acquiescence and exterior obedience to the decrees definitions of the Catholick Roman Church but also it will manifestly appear that Protestants and all men are solicited by a naturall
yours Cath. Because we never heare of any cleare and undeniable miracles I am sure ye have none to confirme the articles wherein ye Protestants differ from us no nor any that lookes like miracles when they are compared with ours 14 Minist Seeing thou dost not desire to speake of miracles let us returne to Scripture Grant that the texts of Gods Word which we bring against Popery were not cleare must they not therefore be believed because forsooth they are obscure Christian Faith must be obscure honest fellow Doth not thy Parish Priest instruct thee thus Cath. My Pastor and Confessor both tell me that the mysteries of Christian Faith are obscure but never incredible Min. Now friend I have caught thee Is it not incredible that there is no bread in the Sacrament of the Altar Why therefore dost thou believe Transubstantiation as a mystery of Faith Cath. It is rather incredible there should be any bread in the blessed Sacrament for if there were why should all Catholicks deny a thing that hath so great appearance Whether bread be there or no Priests have the same almes for saying Masse no gaine acrues to them by Transubstantiation On the other side its impossible that all Catholicks should be so mad as to contradict their own senses if God had not commanded them not to credit their eyes and tast in this Divine mystery but rather to rely upon his words and believe that the blessed Sacrament is his Body if it be Christs Body it can not be bread because our bodies are no bread and Christs Body is of the same nature with ours 15 Min. Alas poor ignorant soule Christs words must be understood spiritually he himselfe told the Disciples that his words are spirit and life Cath. Iohn 6. I heard our Pastor the last Sonday explaine that same text to confirme Transubstantiation For he said that Christ is in the Sacrament truly and really but with a spirituall presence and that we receive his very Body and Bloud though not in a corporall manner there is some difference quoth he betweene eating of Christs Flesh and eating a piece of beefe This onely was Christs meaning when he said that his words were spirit and life which no way can prejudice Transubstantiation though some Puritans thinke that they are contrary to the reall presence Whether bread be there or no Christs true Body and Bloud is received in the Communion according Protestants so that it concerns them as much as Catholicks to interpret these words of Christs as we do unlesse ye will become Calvinists by saying that ye eate Christs Body by Faith that is ye believe to receive him when ye do not which is a lying and false Faith or that ye receive his grace but not himself and that is to deny in plain termes the reall presence All this did our Pastor teach in the Cathechisme 16 Min. Well in this matter none is bound to believe your Pastor or his Cathechisme we believe that Christ is really present in the Sacrament but how he is there we do not examine neither ought the Roman Church or the Councell of Lateran impose Transubstantiation upon us as a thing necessary to be believed Cath. I have heard talke much of that Councell of Lateran they say there were present thereat the Pope and two Pattiarchs of the East 70. Metropolitans 400. Bishops and 800 other learned men out of all parts of the world If Transubstantiation was not a necessary article of Faith they did very ill to declare it one and condemne as Hereticks all such as denyed it Yet me thinks the testimony of so many learned men is of greater weight I pray Sir pardon me if I offend you I do not intend it then the testimony of any reformed Church to the contrary I never heard of such a Councell in any Protestant Church It s true I heare that the Ministers of Stratzburg and of the Church of Zurick look as reverendly as the Protestant Church of England and have set forth as exact a Confession of their beliefe as ye have done of yours in the 39. articles but I could never learn that any of you had such an Assembly as the Councell of Lateran or of Trent Therefore ye can not blame Catholicks to preferre the testimony of these Councells before the testimonies of the Church of Stratzburg Zurick or that of England which was modeld as our Priests tell us by six Bishops and six other men or the major part of them seven of them were sufficient to cast Christian Religion take away Sacraments alter the matter and forme of them and change the ancient ceremonies Without doubt its more reasonable to rely upon the Councell of Trent then upon the twelve or seven persons that invented the Common prayer Booke and the Ritual of the English Church 17 Min. Hast thou ever heard of one Fr. Paulo who writ the History of the Councell of Trent and describes how the holy Ghost was sent in a bag thither from Rome Cath. I have heard much of that man they say he was no Saint at least of our Church and had a spleene against the Pope If what he writes were true not onely the Bishops and others who were in the Councell of Trent had beene mad or Impostors but all the Catholicks of the world who accepted the same as a true Councell ought to be declared and recorded naturall fooles It s more credible that Fr. Paulo was a lying Knave then that all the Catholicks of the world are naturall fooles or that all the Bishops of the Couuncell were Impostors Therefore I can not believe his History of the Councell of Trent Truly his expression of the holy Ghosts journey in a bag proves him to have been a profane fellow They say his history is both solidly and elegantly confuted by Palavicini the Jesuite It s strange to me how sober Protestants can believe such fopperies and wicked practises of the chief Prelats and persons of the Catholick Church 18 Min. Hold there friend Dost thou thinke that onely the Roman Catholicks are the whole Catholick Church ye are but a part Cath. I am sure Roman Catholick alone were the whole Catholick Church before that Luther and Calvin begun their pretended Reformation They and all ye Protestants differ from us in Faith Therefore ye are no part of the Catholick Church that was called so in the year 1516. If God hath Instituted another Catholick Church since and ye make that appear I am content to call ye Catholicks but untill then Master Doctor you must excuse me Min. Ye and we believe the same things onely ye differ from us in some petty matters not necessary to be believed as Transubstantiation Cath. Do you call that a petty thing which the Catholick Church defined to be a matter of Faith who shall be the Judge of what is necessary or not necessary to be believed Min. Not your Pope nor his Councels because y are a part and have a prejudice