respect your definition as I sayd destroyes itselfe as if one could be cut off from the Church by Schisme and yet remaine a part therof A man divided from the Church remaynes a man and is part of the Community or number of men but is not a part or member of the Church as you will not deny but that if for example one should forsake all Christianity yea and fall into Judaisme Turcisme or Paganisme he should still be a part of the number of men but not a member or part of any Christian Church And it is ridiculous to say that Luther and his associats did not separate from themselves seing by their very separation they ceased to be any part of the Church and the Church remayned one whole and so by their not separation from themselves as men you cannot inferr that they did not separate from all Churches and from all true members and parts of all true Churches Yea if they be considered as members of the Church they did in some sort separate even from themselves by ceasing to be now what once they were that is true members of the Church But we shall say more of this herafter Only I obserue now if as you say Pag 264. N. 30. the sin of Schisme be a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church much more grievous must that sin be in him who separates from the whole Church or from all Churches as Luther professed to doe 74. Secondly When you say The requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church are Faith and Obedience What Faith or what Obedience meane you That Faith wherby one believes and that Obedience wherby one obeyes all the Definitions and Decrees of the Church If so then you suppose him to be vnited with the Church not only in Faith but also in externall Communion because nothing is more strictly commanded than such an vnion and Communion but then you are out of our case of being separated from the Church If you meane Faith and Obedience to God it is impossible even by your owne confession that one should obey God and divide himselfe from the externall Communion of all Churches without cause aÌ„d therfore he cannot by any such imaginary ObedieÌ„ce be a member of the Church You say 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 hardly be sufficient Therfore you suppose there is a strict command not to separate from any Churches Communion without necessary cause And then as for Faith you say Pag 134. N. 13. Among the conditions which Christ requires for salvation one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue been revealed by him Therfore say I whosoever opposes a Point though not Fundamentall in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as revealed by God failes in the condition of Obedience required for salvation and so wants one of the requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church therfore he leaves the Church and Protestants erring in such Points divide themselves from the Church and certaine it is that some of them must erre in Points at least not Fundamentall 75. Thirdly The Church essentially implyes not only Faith but also externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and publike worship of God therfore whosoever leaves the externall Communion of a Church he cannot but leaue the Church as being divided from it in a thing essentiall to the Church and consequently without which one cannot be a member thereof Moulin Lib 1. cont Peron Cap 26. saith plainly That is the true Church which is vnited togeather in profession of true Faith and Communion of Saâ—ramentâ— And Calvin Lib 4. Institut Cap § 4. saith We cannot haue two or three Churches but Christ must be divided Wherby it appeares that men cannot be of one Church vnless they be vnited in one common mysticall Body for example John hath a head a hand c and so hath Thomas but they are not said to communicate in one head or hand because the parts of their Body are not vnited in one common linke or whole Body Different Kingdomes and Commonwealths may chance to haue the same Lawes Customes Statutes yea and the same forme of Government yet that is not enough to denominate them one Kingdome or Common wealth because they haue not any such vnion or Communion as may make them one mysticall Body Dr. Lawd Pag 300. Affirmes that the Donatists agreed in Faith with the Catholike Church and yet grants that they were Schismatiks and divided from the Church which Division being supposed they could not be properly said to communicate with Her even in Faith because similitude alone without a common vnion in some Whole cannot make one a member or part of one Church But what need I proue a thing evident in it selfe The very Definition of Schisme taken properly as it is distinct from Heresy implyes an agreement in Faith and that supposed it is a separation in externall Communion only therfore similitude in Faith is not sufficient to make that one be not truly said to forsake the Church Jewes and Turks belieue one God and so do Christians and yet they cannot be sayd to be in Communion with Christians even in that Point which all of them belieue in regard they make not on mysticall Body I may eate the same meate which an excommunicate person eates but I may not eate with him not he with me So Jewes and Turks belieue some Truth which we belieue yet properly speaking they belieue not with vs because they themselves are divided from vs. One thing therfore it is to belieue the same Point and another to be vnited in the beliefe therof Neither is there in this particular any difference between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points For though one belieue all the same Fundamentall Points which another believes yet he believes them not with him because as I sayd the believers themselves are divided in Communion one from another Otherwise if you will needs haue all those to be of one Church who belieue all Fundamentall Points it will follow that there is no Schisme at all as it is distinguished from Heresy For that doctrine being supposed if one belieue all Fundamentall Points he is no Schismatike If he erre in any Fundamentall or Necessary Point he is an Heretike Therfore Schisme in this way shall never be distinguished from Heresy which yet is contrary to your owne doctrine which we cited aboue out of your Pag 271. N. 51. Where you say We are not to learne the difference betweene Schisme and Herely For Heresy we conceaue an obstanâ—te defence of any errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causless separation of one part of the Church from another You do not declare
Church is not only secure but certaine and easy and therfore necessary Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe And then it is further inferred that if it either be no sin or at least a less offense to profess errours than to forsake the Church she may justly exact and injoyne vnder Censures that to which every one is obliged by the Law of God notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours For when the Holy Fathers vnanimously agree that it is not possible there can be any just cause to forsake the Church they must suppose that either she cannot fall into any errour which is most true and indeed they suppose it otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall and a particular Church which may fall into errour and so be forsaken or els you must grant that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion And this vnaninâ—ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill as separation from the Church is Nevertheless reason it selfe grounded in principles of Faith convinceth the same For in true Divinity it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any one point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants and you say further that it is to giue God the ly and therfore to profess as a point of Faith any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church is to say she erred fundamentally and fell into infidelity as Potter saith every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed and consequently to profess that the Church erred is to say that she perished which Potter saith is in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall and so Whosoever saith the Church erred he himselfe by that very saying professes indeed a damnable heresy which is worse than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamentall nor necessary and so by your owne confessions though I grant your confessions contradict yourself we proue our intent 123. Besides it is no less evident that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God than to profess externally some point which one believes not to be true yea that first must be the ground for which you say it is damnable to profess against ones conscience an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation For if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God For it is to be considered that we speake not of any internall errour but only of the externall profession of an errour not Fundamentall which alone is not so great a sinne as internall Heresy nor so vast a Mischiefe as the inconvenience of Schisme is which is destructiue of the whole Church essentially including communion in profession of one Faith Liturgy c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall irreligiosity contempt disobedience and in one word vniversitatem malorum and therfore S. Thomas teaches 2.2 Quest 29. Art 2. ad 3. that amongst sins against our neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community and as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Pag 156. N. 6. As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome or Common wealth so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 157. N. 70. of the grievousness of Schisme All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now that the profession of an errour in our case cannot so much as hurt a private person who constituted in an invincible perplexity doth not sin by embracing the less evill in the opinion of great Divines with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience is certaine not to sin whatsoever the thing be in it selfe 134. Morover it is evident both in reason and by experience that Schisme always brings with it that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient and damnable that is a profession of errours at least not Fundamentall by multiplying diversity of Sects and opinions as we see it happens among Protestants some of whoâ— must be in an errour And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle which some casting of haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason And is it not worse both to belieue and profess culpable errours than to belieue aright and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike both in conscience and judgment of the Church the latter is indeed no Heretike but only appeares so to be neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks The former offends in two respects in the beliefe of an errour and profession of it The latter only in profession which alone as I saied cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe both because the profession is sinfull only by reason of the errour professed as also because by heresy one doubts or denyes some truth revealed by God which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue as S. Thomas saith 2.2 Quest 39. A â— c. Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum secundum quod in se est veritas prima cui fides innititur But to profess a knowne errour is only against the precept of professing ones Faith which are distinct thinges and therfore as I sayd a culpable errour is worse than the only profession of an errour If you thinke that such an externall profession is worse than an internall errour because that is against ones conscience you are much mistaken it being certaine that not every sin of dissimulation against ones conscience is greater than any other sin as is cleare of it selfe to every Divine or Philosopher yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour flowes from the Heresy itself which ordinarily is a worse roote than humane feare hope or the like from which an externall false profession or dissimulation is wont to procede and therfore this is less damnable than that even though it were a finne and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity as we have Shewed it may be S. Thomas 2.2 Quest 39. Art 2. in corpore teaches that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater
Protestants haue no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture Your supposition therfore in the consult of Physitians that in the receypt of which they spoke though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous yet not hurtfull cannot be applyed against vs but retorted vpon yourselfe that as in case the whole receypt did containe some things hurtfull no man could in conscience take it so 〈◊〉 being in danger of falling into damnable errours by occasion of interpreting Scripture without dependance or relation to an infallible Guide cannot without manifest danger of their soules hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone and therfore must resolue to seeke a Living Guide the true Church of God which they shall be sure to find if they seeke with great instance constancy and humility 59. Out of what hath beene sayd in this Chapter these Corollaryes are evidently doduced That there are certaine Fundamentall Articles of Faith which vnless a man belieue actually and explicitly he cannot haue the substance of Faith nor can any Congregation be a true Church nor can there be any hope of salvation as all both Catholikes and Protestants affirme That vnless there be some Meanes to be assured what those Fundamentall Articles are none can be certaine that they haue the substance of Faith or be members of the true Church or oanâ—â—pect salvation That hitherto Protestants notwithstanding their â—â—most endeavour could never declare what those Points are That the meanes which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to misse of them is neither sufficient nor possible That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assigne any such Catalogue That Catholikes 〈◊〉 a most certaine and infallible way to know such Points and all other Truths as occasion shall require by submitting to a Living Judg of Controversyes And therfore That none can be sure that he hath true Faith is a member of the true Church or is in possibility to be saved vnless he belieue profess and obey such an Infallible Judg the One alwayes existent Visible Church of God From which Truth this other evidently followes That whosoever devide themselves from the Communion of that true Church are guilty of the grievous sinne of Schisme And that Protestants haue done so shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP VII PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME 1. THE Title of this Chapter having bene made good at large by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. against all that Dr. Potter could invent in Defense of Protestants If now I can confute whatsoever you alledg in Defence of the Doctour the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintayned must in all right be adjudged to keepe their first possession and this Truth remayne constant That Protestants and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formall Schisme 2. In the beginning Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chapt 5. N. 4. layes this ground That the Catholique Church signifyes One Congregation of Faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them Faithfull Believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division or Schisme This is a very evident and certaine Truth and therfore Tertulian de Praescrip Cap. 41. observes it as a property of heretiks that they communicate with all Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent Nihil enim interest illis licèt diversa tractantibus dum ad vnius veritatis expugnationem conspirent Thus we see Protestants will needs call all Brethren who are not Papists Yea many will not haue Papists make a Church distinct from them S. Austine was of an other mynd from Protestants who de Uera Relig Cap 5. condemnes Philosophers because teaching different things of God yet they frequented the same sacrifices and adds So it is believed and taught that it is the principall point of mans salvation that there is not an other Philosophy that is study of wisdome and an other Religion when they whose Doctrine we approue not communicate not in Sacraments with vs. Which Truth S. Austine judges to be of so great valve and necessity and the contrarie so pernicious as he avoucheth Si hoc vnum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret And Lib 19. cont Faust Cap 11 he sayth Men cannot be joyned into any name of Religion true or false vnless they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments Therfore Communion in Sacraments is essentially necessary to vnite the members of One Church and distinguish it from all other In this manner Act 2. 42. it is sayd of those first Christians They were presevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Communication of breaking bread and prayer Behold a Communication not only in Faith or Doctrine but also in Sacraments and Prayers Neither do Protestants deny this Truth Molins Lib 1. cont Perron Cap 2. saith The ancient Doctours are wont to vnderstand by the Church which oftentymes they call Catholike the whole Society of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in Faith vnited togeather in Communion and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatikes and Heretiks which we will not reject By which words it appeares That the Holy Fathers and even Protestants make vnity in Communion against Schisme no less essentiall to the Church then in Faith against Heresy Field Lib 1. Cap 15. The Communion of the Church consisteth in Prayers and dispensation of Sacraments And Lib 2. Cap 2. Communion in Sacraments is essentiall to the Church 3. The reason of this Truth is very cleare For without Communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publike worship of God the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismaticall congregation Because seing Schismatiks as they are distinguished from Heretiks cannot be distinguished by a different Faith wherin they are supposed to agree with Catholiks they can be distinguished only by externall Communion which therfore must be essentiall to the Church as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schisme S. Austine speakes excellently to this purpose Epist 48. You are with vs in Baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in the spirit of vnity in bond of peace finally in the very Catholique Church you are not with vs. Which words declare that the spirit of vnity and bond of peace are necessary and essentiall to constitute men members of One Church All agree that to be one Church there must be vnity in Faith and seing Faith is ordaynd to the salvation of soules 1. Pet 1.9 by the true worship of God vnity in this worship is no less necessary than vnity in Faith The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation and therfore doth essentially require visible signes to distinguish it from all other companyes by Sacraments externall worship of God and a publike Liturgie which if
censure of Holy Scripture He who soone believes is light of heart that is they could haue no Act of Divine supernaturall faith which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost and this cannot be given to produce or foster such fooleryes or imprudences In the same manner you take no notice of that which Cha Ma in the same Section cites out of Calvin Ep. 141. we haue been forced to make a separation from the whole world nor aske him how he could say so without strayning and how they made a separation from the whole world nor how they could say so seing so many millions followed them But I beseech you consider that even Luther himselfe for his owne opinions and apostasy proceeded by degrees so farr as that he pretended to submitt himselfe to the Pope And then how could so many follow him at the first instant when himselfe knew not what to follow And at that tyme was he not alone neither Catholike nor setled in any other doctrine And seing in those doubts and doctrines some tyme must passe before he himselfe was setled or could instill them to others it is manifest that he opposed himselfe to All Churches then extant and then we must by your owne Rule say that All opposed themselves to him that is they believed at that tyme those Articles and embraced those rites Liturgy and publike manner of worshipping God which he condemned which is true even of those who afterward were seduced by him and so it is most true that in the beginning he opposed himselfe to All and All opposed themselves to him as appeares by that which he further sayth Ep ad Argentinenses Anno 1525. Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first diuulged by vs. Mark primo first and Conrad Schlusselburg in Theolog Calvinist L. 2. saith It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell The like sayings of others concerning Luther may be seene in Ch Ma P. 1. P. 267. It is therfore true that he opposed himselfe to All and All to him 117. Object 12. Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 202. N. 57. to proue it vniversally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ alledges S. Austine saying Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause Against this Argument you object thus Pag 302. N. 101. It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are vnited among themselves Another to divide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I meane of Christians and Catholikes was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their owne Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands vpō no other foundatiō but the vnity of the whole worlds Communiō 118. Answer Ex ore tuo te judico Your owne Answer overthrowes your owne doctrine Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world in that wherin the whole world agrees separates from the Communion of the world because to vse your owne words this is to divide from them who are vnited among themselves and is not to divide from them who are divided among themselves But Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in points wherin the whole world was vnited therfore he divided himselfe from the Communion of the whole world The Minor that Luther divided himselfe from the whole world in Points wherin the whole world was vnited that is as Protestants falsely affirme in errours and corruptions common to the whole then visible Church Charity Maintayned Pag P. 61. N. 9. and P. 167. N. 12. hath proved out of learned Protestants as also we haue seene even now by the confession of Luther Calvin and Schlusselb and the thing is cleare of itselfe and even bragged of by Luther and his followers Neither is there any speech more common among Protestants then that the whole visible Church was corrupted ād this is the reason which you ād other Protestāts yeild in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches otherwise there could haue beene no pretence of a reformation If saith the Protestant Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confessione Art 7. de Ec There had beene right believers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation Therfore the argument of ha Ma taken out of S. Austine holds good and strong no lesse against Luther who separated from all Churches in Points wherin they were not divided but vnited than it was of force against the Donatists Yea further it proves that those supposed errours which Luther pretend to reforme were indeed Orthodox truths even by the Rule which you alledg out of Tertullian variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Seing then All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines which he vndertooke to reforme they cannot be errours being the same not only apud multos among many as Tertullian speakes but apud omnes among all Christian Churches in the world And this reason taken out of Tertullian growes stronger in our case even by your saying that The world of Christians and Catholiks was divided and subdivided long before Luther divided from it because when so many yea and all who otherwise are divided and subdivided yet agree vnanimously in some Points that very consent amongst men of so very different dispositions affections and opinions is more then a very great Argument that Luther and his followers could not haue just cause to leaue them as you argue against the Donatists From whence it also followes that you are in an errour of pernicious consequence while you say that Christians and Catholikes by then Divisions had much weakned their owne authority and taken away from vs Catholikes this plea of S. Austine which stands vpon no other foundation but the vnity of the whole worlds Communion seing this vnity yieldes a stronger argument in our present case by the Divisions and subdivisions of which you talke and therfore doth not takeaway but strengthen our plea out of S.
and salvation Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniversall Church 2. Since she is vnder paine of eternall damnation to be believed in some things wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment 3. Since we are obliged not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamentall Points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one Point least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall and necessary to salvation 4. That Visible Church even that Church which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed vnder Anathemas or Curses holding it as a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one Point in particular which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man in state of damnation wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger our salvation as likwise to remayne in her communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable 5. The true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command and require obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one vnless I know evidently that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far Gods Church can proceed then Gods Church herselfe Or to what Doctour can the children and Schollers with greater reason and security fly for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person or applying Scriptures against Her Doctrine or interpretation 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue fayled even in Fundamentall Points and suffered shipwrack of their salvation ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine or practise As to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages shee erred to death and wholy perished which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniversall Church within Africa or some other small tract of soile Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of the Church which cannot erre Fundamentally especially if we add that according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines One errour in Faith whether it be for the matter itselfe great or small destroyes Faith and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour is to affirme that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth 125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd N. 20. which I wish you had set downe as you found them that the Reader might haue judged how much they ought to weigh with every one who hath a serious care to saue his soule Sure I am they are growne stronger by your Objections as will appeare to any indifferent Reader 126. Your chiefest and as I may call it Fundamentall Answer is That I begg the Question in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points and that Protestants when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points vnderstand only That there shall be alwayes a Church to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls But I haue shewed hertofore that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants in fastening on them so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground in the sense which Protestants grant and which I haue proved to be true Which truth being supposed yourselfe are forced to favour vs so farr as to say Pag 163. N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greeke or the Roman Church which if we had done and set vp some setled certaine Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point And in the next N. 56. you say First we confesse no such thing thas the Church of Rome was then this Church vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose but only a Part of it Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could haue beene thus far secured this argumēt had some shew of Reason And P 150. N. 39. If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her but also learne of her what is Fundamentall and take all for Fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance wherof if I knew any one Church to he Infallible I would quickly be of that Church Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church But in the meane tyme you grant as much as will serue to overthrow all your owne Arguments in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points we haue all reason not to forsake Her And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point so that you make good both his Assertion and reason therof and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise by being quickly of that Church Heere I beseech you remember your owne words Pag 280. N. 95. May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted And then suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall what would you doe The same reason of not erring in Fundamentalls for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her would also oblige you nor to forsake her and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned alledged by him to proue that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the
knowledge of Scripture Do not these words speake of the first Principle among Christians who alone receiue Scripture and not of Principles in Metaphysicke Mathematicke c which were nothing to the purpose Or who ever dreamed that Scripture could be the most knowne in all sciences seing it is not knowne by any naturall science but depends on Divine Revelation Yea doth not Ch Ma expressly say That if Potter meane Scripture to be one of those Principles which being the first and most knowne in all sciences cannot be Demonstrated by other Principles He supposes that which is in question Which words declare That Scripture is none of those Principles which are most knowne either in all naturall sciences or in Christianity 16. Out of what hath beene sayd very often it is easy to answer and retort all that you haue in all your sections till the N. 62. For to vs who belieue the Church of God to be infallible diversity of Tranlations or corruptions can bring no harme seeing we are sure that the Church can neverapproue any false Translation or corruption nor ground vpon them any Point of Faith But for you who deny the infallibility of the Church and rely vpon Scripture alone false Translations or corruptions may import no less than the losse of your soules by being led into some damnable errour or left in ignorance of some Point necessary to salvation For to rely vpon Scripture alone and yet not to know with certainty what Scripture in particular is Canonicall and incorrupted is to take away all certainty from it and from the Faith of Protestants grounded on it alone The Church did exist before any Scripture was written and must last although we should imagine that all Scripture were lost as some say it happened to the Old Testament at least it lay hid Only I must note for answer to your N. 58. and 59. that Catholikes object to Protestants not only difference of Translations of which you speake N. 59. but that one of them most deeply condemnes the Translation of the other as Ch Ma Pag 52. N. 16. sets downe at large As for the vulgate Translation approved by the sacred Councell of Trent we are sure that it can containe no errour against Faith and for diverse Readings we are certaine that the Church can never approue any one that is false or settle any doctrine vppon it as I sayd even now But to treate at large of this Translation would require a Uolume and is not for this tyme for my or even your purpose In your N. 61 you pretend to make good or excuse Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom 3.28 We account a man to be justifyed by Faith translates justifyed by Faith Alone and in stead of proving you only ask What such great difference is there between Faith without the works of the Law and Faith alone without the works of the Law Or why does not without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Answer there is as great difference between those two Propositions as betwene Truth and Falshood That a man is justifyed by Faith without the works of the Law is a truth believed both by Catholiques and Protestants for both of vs belieue that Faith concurres to justification But that other Proposition A man is justifyed by Faith alone without the works of the Law signifyes that we are not justifyed by the works of the Law but by Faith alone that is by nothing but by Faith which is false and excludes justification by Hope Charity and works of Christian piety and accordingly Luther being admonished of this shamefull falsification answered poenitet me quod non addiderim illas duas voces omnibus omnium vz. sine omnibus operibus omnium legum Besides it is strang you will defend this falsification of Alone seing Pag 406. N. 32. you wish that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but wheÌ„ the 13. Chap of the 1. Epist to the Corinth Concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read togeather with theÌ„ But then good Sr. what danger of misprision must it needs be when people shall think S. Paul spoke of Faith Alone as Luther makes him speak To this may be added what you haue Pag 218. N. 49. of the danger of justification by Faith alone Neither I nor others with whom I haue confered can make any sense of your other workes Or why does not Without c. The translation of Zuinglius This signifyes my Body in stead of This is my Body is rejected by Protestants themselves where of see Brereley Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect. 9. Subd 3. 17. In your N 62. till the 80 inclusiue you vainly triumph as if you did invincibly proue that according to our Groundes mens salvation depends vpon vncertaintyes All which I haue answered at large hertofore 18. Concerning your N. 83 I desire the Reader to consider what Charity Maintayned recites out of Dr Couell about our vulgate Tanslation of Scripture and he will find that your Answer to that particular is but a vaine speculation and that he supposes the Translation which is called the Bishops Bible and is approved in England to be the best as coming neerest to the vulgate which had been no proofe at all vnless he had also supposed the Vulgate to be the best all things considered and so made it a Rule to Judge of the goodness and quality of that English Translation 19. To your N. 86. I answer that if Dr Field when he saith in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the L. Archbishop Seeing the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them what remayneth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that how should of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbraâ—e her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment If I say Dr. Field did not thinke of any company of Christians invested with such Authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their decrees as you say he did not I can only say that when he spoke of searching out that Blessed Company of holy Ones c he spoke of a Chimera or of a thing impossible and yet he saith that there remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence only this that they search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Blessed Company of holy Ones c which had bene nothing els but to bring men to desperation by prescribing one only meanes for salvation and that an
things indifferent that is neither commanded nor prohibited But as for the thing it self S. Austine never speaks of particular Churches as we haue heard him speak of the vniversall both in this place of which we treate and in other sentences alledged by Ch. Ma. in the saied N. 16. and the Promises of our Saviour were made to the vniversall Church Yea you confess that S. Austine speaking even in this place of those things which he dislikes saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church which words declare that the Scripture Generall Councells the Custome of the vniversall Church and consequently the Church of God can never be saied to approue any such presumptions as S. Austine calls them which he never saieth of particular Churches And therfore when you say that superstitions may in tyme take such deepe roote as to pass for vniversall customes of the Church you contradict S. Austine and that the world may see you doe it plainely and as I may say in actu signato and not only exercito but to his face you take his owne words Consuetudine vniversae Ecclesiae roboratum corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church and say that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austines tyme which circumstance of tyme is to be noted to shew how directly you contradict him prevailed so farre as to be corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and Authority not oily of an vniuersall custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition And which is more in other places of your Booke you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition not only to S. Austines tyme but even to himself though both imputations be most false and it is strang that through your whole Book you do not so much as once offer any one proofe thereof And yet to shew how causelesly and intemperately you declaime against the Church of S. Austines tyme that you might discredit every Church of every Age and so of all Ages though Protestants commonly hold that the Church was pure in S. Austines tyme you confess he saieth they were not against Faith and only vnprofitable burdens But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem sanamque doctrinam he expresly declares that the truth is to be professed Yea even when there is question not whether a vaine thing be to be permitted but whether a good thing ought to be omitted he saieth Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat vt majora studiosoruÌ„ lucra sperand a sint quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda sine dubitatione faciend um est Now if you be so indiscretely zealous as to say that no inconvenient things are in any case to be tolerated not for feare to offend or for humane respects but for avoiding greater evill you impugne our Saviour and not his Church only who Matth. 13.29.30 forbids the servants to gather vp the cockle least perhaps gathering vp the cockle you may root vp the wheat also togeather with it Suffer both to grow vntill the harvest And you do very wickedly in comparing the observing this advise of our Blessed Saviour to that which He reprehended in the Scribes and Pharises for teaching and not only tolerating perforce vaine things as the washing of pots c Did not the Apostles tolerate for some tyme even after they had received the holy Ghost some Observances of the Mosaicall Law till they became to be deadly as if without them the law of Christ had not beene sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion And for that cause S. Paule saieth stand and be not holden in againe with the joake of servitude Galat. 5. V. 1. and therefore you do absurdly apply against the Church of Christ those words of the Apostle especially seing you confess that those foolish observances which S. Austine dislikes were not against Faith as he saieth expressly that it cannot be found quomodo contra Fidem sint and which is the maine point that they were never decreed by any generall Councell or practised or approved by the vniversall Church which is only our Question Yourself say Pag 301. N. 101. that S. Austine supposed that the publique service of God wherein men are to communicate is vnpolluted and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion which was so true of their Communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And towards the end of the same number you say The Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not haue just cause to leaue them according to that of Terâ—ullian variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est non est erratum sed traditum Therefore you must either free the Church of that tyme from errour or the Donatists from Schisme I haue beene longer in answering this Objection in regard it containes hiddenly more Socinian venome against the Church than appeares at the first sight 58. And now it will be easy to answer your N. 48. wherin you speak thus to Charity Maintayned But you will say not with standing all this S. Austin here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against Faith or good life and so long you may rest securely vpon it What Do you now grant that S. Austine here warrants vs that the Church can never either approue c. Which is the very thing which even now you objected against Cha Ma as if S. Austine had neither saied so not that it could be deduced from what he saied You goe forward and say Yea but S. Austine tells vs in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vaine superstitions and those vrged more severely than the commandements of God and whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeale to our Saviours words before cited and to the concent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it right we shall finde that the Church is not truly saied only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and a farre greater publiquely avowed and practised them and vrged them vpon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet do so I desire you to informe me 59. Answer you seeke to deceyue the ignorant by leading them into a misvnderstanding of the word tolerate as if it did signify a voluntary permission of a thing when it is in our power to hinder it where as the Church doth only tolerate abuses in that sense as our Saviour teaches that
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
N. 4. he endeauours to proue that Faith cannot be absolutely certaine because if it were so any least doubting would destroy it which shewes that doubting may well consist with his kind of probable faith which is that very absurdity which we inferrd as impious against true Religion of which we must resolue neuer to doubt though per jmpossible an Apostle or Angel should moue vs therto as we haue heard out of S. Paule and yet the Authority of an Apostle or perswasion of an Angell should in all reason be preferrd before Faith if it be only probable 24. This inconstancy in Religion appeares further by what he confesses of himselfe Pag. 389. N. 7. where speaking of a command of obedience to the Roman Church he hath these words sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeauour to find it true and am still willing to doe so but the more I seeke the further I am from findinge c. Behold how after so long tyme so much deliberation so many changes of Religion euen after the writing of his Booke he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed Also P. 184. N. 90. he sayth Shew vs any way and do not say but proue it to haue come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to vs and we are ready to followit Neither do we expect Demonstration herof but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary Agreable to this is his professing Preface N. 2. that he had a trauellers indifferency most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it And N. 5. he professes that his constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heauen which for the present seemed to him the most probable A poore comfort and miserable faith only probable and of no longer continuance than for the tyme present I willingly omitt that his deeds were agreeable to his words changing first from Protestants to Catholike then from Catholike to Protestant and about againe to Catholike till at last he became neyther Precisian nor Subscriber to the 39. Articles nor confessed Socinian nor any thing vnless that mhich S. Bernard sayth of Abailardus Ep 193. Homo sibi dissimilis est totus ambiguus He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe wholy compounded of doubts I willingly leaue out his middle words Intus Herodes for is Ioannes inwatdly a Herode outwardly a Iohn If the Apostles be to be belieued only in that which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth as he teaches Pag. 144. N. 31. surely this man and his fellow Socinians ought not to be belieued in any thing seing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible and but probable they neither are nor can be constant in any poynt they deliuer and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees Matt 23.2 whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you doe but according to their works doe not but doe neither what they shall say nor according to their works And heere I beseech and euen begg of the Reader if he haue any care to saue his soule that he will consider how far the faith of this man and his Associates is from true Christian Faith of which we haue heard S. Paule saying Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he an Anathema 25. But this is not all that strongly offers it selfe in this poynt For not only his Faith cannot affoard any rest or satisfaction wherby a man may cease from further inquiry but leaues him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion and seeking whether he can fynd some more probable and better grounded This sequele seems cleare Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to saluation charity towards ones self obliges euery man to seeke the safer way and the most certaine Religion And seeing he is not certaine that the Religion or way to Heauen which for the present seemes to him most probable as we haue heard him speake is indeed the right way what remaynes but that men are obliged to be continually busied and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to saluation This my inference seemes to be acknowledged by him For beside what hath beene already cited he sayes of himselfe P. 278. N. 61. If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of diuine matters being prepard in mynd to fellow God and God only which way sceuer he shall lead me if I did not hope that I eyther doe or endeauour to dâ—e these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining saluation Loe heere little hope of saluation vnless a man be still examining to the bottome his opinions and be prepard in mynd to follow c. But in Vaine it is to seeke that rest which will neuer be found except in a Faith and Religion acknowledged to be absolutely certaine and infallible which alone can put an end to all further inquiry Finally Pag. 376. N. 57. he sayth This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely Ponder verily perswaded And were not you verily perswaded in those your changes which you acknowledg Pag. 303. N. 103. from a moderate Protestant to a Papist from a doubting Papist to a confirmed Protestant were you not I say verily perswaded that you did choose wisely Yea you expresly tell vs in the same Pag. 303. that of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist and that the day that you did so you were conuicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion that is Protestantisme was an errour By all which appeares how inconstant you were and must be in matters of Faith and Religion till you acknowledg an infallible Faith taken from an infallible liuing Guide which is Gods true Church 26. From this liberty of Belief what can follow but liberty of life Seing his belief of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion concerning things of an other world wheras worldly pleasures are in present possession and certaine If the absolute certainty wherwith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their Faith to abound hath not bene able to stop the course of mens licentiousness what can we now expect but that they who before did runne will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodyes objects of profit or delight Pag. 326. N. 4. he teaches that if faith be infallible no Christian could committ any deliberate sinne yea and must be perfect in Charity because Faith is the victorie which ouercomes the world and Charity is the effect of Faith If this be so we may say on thecontrary side that if faith be weake or only probable what victory what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it But let
kept without Gods particular efficacious Grace which will not constantly be given to him who wants true Christian Faith Nay if justifying Grace be necessary for keeping the Commandements for long tyme as I proved there much more true Faith must be required to doe it Morover besides our obligation to keepe the morall law or of Nature there are precepts binding vs to the exercise of supernaturall Acts of infused vertues for example Hope and Charity and how shall our will exercise supernaturall Acts without a proportionable supernaturall direction in our vnderstanding And if the direction be supernaturall it cannot be erroneous but infallibly true and essentially different from your fallible assent as I have bene forced often to repeate But why do I endeavour to prove this poynt I cannot doubt but if you did believe that Christian Faith necessary to salvation must be in it selfe infallible by the particular precept of faith you would not say a Faith only probable could be sufficient to worke by Love and keepe the other Commandements For if it be supposed not be a true Faith how can it worke by Love or live it selfe being more than dead that is an Assent which never lived the life or nature or essence of divine Faith Surely if a Faith believed to be infallible doth not restrayne the wills and Passions of men what liberty would they take if their thoughts could tell them that Christian Religion may prove not true as in your doctrine it may 99. Object 7. Pag. 37. N. 9. Some experience makes me feare that the Faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be crackt with too much strayning and that being possessed with this false principle that it is in vaine to belteue the Gospell of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yeld to other matters of Tradition And fynding that their Faith of it is to them vndiscernable from the belief they giue to the truth of other storyes are in danger either not to belieue at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose or else though indeed they do belieue it yet to think they do not and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityes as fearing they haue not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtaine etern all happyness 100 Answer Blessed be our Lord who hath given vs his Holy Grace not to follow our owne fancyes nor be tossed with every wind of Doctrine but to rely on the Rocke of the Catholike Church where I never knew any such men as you talke of nor do thinke any such can be found amongst Christians no nor amongst any who profess any Religion which all men conceyve to signify a true and certaine way of worshiping God And who would make choyse of a Religion which he did not certainly belieue to be true vnless he be first tempted and tainted with Socinianisme wherby being by his meere probable belief placed betweeÌ„ the certainty of Catholike Faith and the No-religion of Atheists is in evident danger or rather in a voluntary necessity to fall into Atheisme vnless he rayse himselfe to our Catholique Certainty as he may doe by the assistance of Gods Holy Grace which is neuer wanting to vs if we be not wanting to it Do not yourself teach that if one liue as he believes and every one ought to liue as he belieues he shall be raysed by the spirit of God to a certainty If then every one may and ought to make his beliefe sure by a certainty what place remaynes for agonyes and perplexityes Contrarily by resting in a probable Faith he hath manifest and necessary cause of perplexity and most just feare least he want that which Catholiks Protestants and all who profess any Religion hold most certainly necessary to salvation and that it is a grievous sin even to deny such a necessity especially the contrary pernicious errour being maintained by a few who dare not openly declare of what Sect they are Men in the question concerning Eternity of Happiness or Misery are obliged to seek and embrace the safer way of which by meere probability they cannot be assured but must be still seeking further and further and never finding Certainty in their naked probabilityes are deservedly by their owne fault cast into most reasonable agonyes and perplexityes Not then our belief of the certainty of Christian Faith but your contrary Heresy puts men in danger not to belieue at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose For since as it were by the instinct of nature men conceiue Religion to be a certainly true and right worship of God you who would perswade them that no such certainty is possible cast them with good reason vpon a necessity of believing nothing at all wherin as every body will detest your impiety so I cannot but wonder at your inconsequence to yourself in the other part of these your words or else though indeed they do belieue it yet to thinke they do not and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityds seing Pag. 357. N. 38. you resolutely say to Charity Maintayned of your selfe I certainly know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I do belieue the Gospell of Christ as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this Motiue because I conceyue it sufficiently abundantly superabundantâ—y proved to be Divâ—ne Revelation And after a few lines you say in generall If no man can err coâ—cerning what he believes then you muâ—â— give me leaue to assure myself that I do belieue Do not all these words aÌ„d more to be read in the same place declare that in your opinyon whosoeuer belieues with certainty is certaine that he belieues with certainty yea and which is more he is certaine vpon what Motiue he belieues How then do you say They are in danger though indeed they belieue yet to thinke they do not and to cast themselues into wretched c By the way it is to be observed that heer you profess to belieue the Divine Revelation not for it self as the Formall Object of Faith should be belieued but for precedent Inducements which therfor are the Formall Object of our Faith and so it is no Theologicall vertue nor a Divine Assent as I said hertofore 101. But above all who can indure your saying that considering and discoursing men fynd their faith of the Gospell of Christ to be to them vndiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other storyes and yet you suppose and labour to prove that such a faith is sufficient to salvation I appeale to the conscience of every Christian whether he fynds not in his soule an assent to what he reads in Holy Scripture farr different and of another kind and higher nature and greater strength than the credit he gives to other storyes If your considering and discoursing men have
Confessionem privatam vrgebat velut necessariam Osiander was the first Minister at Norinberg who required private Confession as a thing necessary 18. Now I argue in this manner Some poyntes in the Opinion both of Catholiques and Protestants are necessary to salvation for every particular Person for example Faith and Repentance after deadly sin And yet we see that Protestants differ both from Catholikes and disagree amongst themselves about the nature of Faith and Repentance and disagree so as that both sydes cannot have true Faith and Repentance For if true Faith must be infallible Chilling and his Associates cannot be saved both because they believe and teach so capitall an Errour and because they practise it being satisfyed with a probable fallible Faith The like I say of that justifiyng Faith which Calvinists hold necessary for justification and salvation against Catholikes and all other Protestants even Socinians who believe it to be a meer pernicious ād presumptuous fancy As also the same may be sayd of Baptisme and the sacrament of Pennance which according to all Catholikes and diuers Protestants are necessary to salvation against many other Protestants Therfor Protestants must confess that all things necessary to salvation are not evident in Scripture vnless they will pronounce an inevitable sentence of damnation against those whom they call Brethren as Teaching an Errour in matters necessary to salvation and practising in conformity to their errour either by omitting themselves or being cause by their Doctrine that others Neglect or ommit things absolutely necessary to salvation which judgment I belieue they will not be hasty to frame against their Brethren but rather will pretend to conceyve of these particular poynts of which we speake as Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. speakes in generall of persons contrary in belief which may be concerning poynts wherin Scripture may with sogreat probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and vpright harts true lovers of God and truth such as desire above all things to know Gods will and to doe it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another which kind of opinion if they thinke fitt to frame of their brethren as being men of honest and vpright harts true lovers of God and truth c they must give me leave to infer that scripture is not evident in all poynts even where there is question of Articles absolutely necessary to salvation 19. Which reason taken from their mutuall disagreements in necessary matters doth prove that they are not evident in scripture according to Chilling saying Pag 61. N. 24. The thing is not evident of it selfe which is evident because many do not believe it 20. Nay further I must inferr that seing in points absolutely necessary to salvation Charitas propria the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves obligeth every one to chuse the safer part and that Protestants cannot fynd any evident scripture that the Sacraments of Baptisme and pennance are not necessary for salvation not only all Catholikes but divers chief Protestants holding them to be necessary it followes that prorestants are obliged to believe them to be necessary and accordingly to frame their practise Neither can they be excused by Chilling worths sayinge that it is a sure note of a point not necessary that scripture may with great probability be alledged on both sides because this excuse implies a begging of the Question as if there were no meanes to be assured of what is necessary to salvation except scripture alone yea rather he ought from the difficulty which he apprehends in scripture for these matters of so great moment necessarily to infer that the written word taken alone contaynes not evidently all necessary points 21. Thus even in this first entrance it appeares how not only vntrue but vnreasonable also this common Tenet of Protestants is 22. Which will yet be more manifest if we consider that whatsoever is necessary for the Curch immediatly as it is one community or body the same must be mediatè necessary for every particular member as in a naturall body whatsoever is necessary for preserving the whole is consequētly necessary for every part which would be destroyed by the destruction of the whole as also the destruction of all the parts collectives is the distruction of the whole And so if the scripture be nor evidēt in poynts necessary to salvation for every part immediatè it would follow mediatè that it is not evidēt for all poynts necessary for the whole evē though it wāted nothing immediatly necessary forthe whole as governours c and there is in this a necessary connectiō between these considerations of the whole ād every part It is true every mā is not obliged to be Bishop or a Clergy man to absolue from sins to consecrate the Eucharist jnflict consurs to Gouerne make Lawes Administer Sacraments set downe a Liturgy or publike worship of God and the like yet it is necessary for every one to be a member of the true Church in which all these advantages must be found it being the first principle a mongst Christians that remission of sins and salvation cannot be hoped for out of thetrue church nor many grievous sins avoyded if one be a member of a body governed by vnlawfull superiours guyded by vnjust Lawes destitute of power to punish offenders fed with false Sacramemts tyed to a superstitious or sacrilegious Liturgi c And therfore as it is impossible to prove out of evident scripture all the poynts which concerne immediatly the whole body of the Church so we must even for that same reason infer that it is not possible to prove out of evident Scripture whatsoever is necessary for every particular person 23. I have stayed longer in this entrance than I intented yet I hope not vnprofitably since I have already proved as it were by a generall view the improbability and impossibility that all things necessary should be contayned evidently in scripture taken alone Which by Gods holy assistance I hope to evince more in particular by the reasons following 24. First seeing protestants will haue nothing believed as matter of Faith which is not evident in scripture this very principle of theirs That all things necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture must be evidently proved out of scriptures as the foundation of all their Faith it must I say be proved by some Text evidently affirming not only that all poynts of Faith are contained in scripture but that they are contayned evidently Othetwise if it be but obscure we cannot haue that certainty which is necessary to Faith For this being a poynt not evident to naturall Reason but depending on Gods free Determination we must only know it by Revelation or the Testimony and word of God that is according to protestants only by scripture Now they are not able to produce any such evident Text. Which will appeare by answering and evidently confuting their
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
amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which
not for poynts only profitable and if you answer affirmatively then you wil be obliged to informe vs how we may be able to distinguish so evidently between very profitable and only profitable things as that we may certainly know what must be clearly contayned in scripture what not But it is impossible for you to giue any such intelligible solid practicall distinction and therfore you cannot affirme that all very profitable poynts are evident in scripture but not things only profitable Since then you cannot say that al profitable things are evident in scripture for that were to affirme that all scripture is cleare there being nothing revealed by God which is not profitable and yet who will deny but that the scripture is obscure in some poynts you must be content to conclude that all very profitable things are not evidently contayned in scripture And further wheras you joyne togeather things necessary and things very profitable and assigne the selfsame meanes for ending all controversies concerning those two kinds of things which is really and sincerely to submitt their judgments to scripture and that only seing this means will not serue for ending all controversies in things very profitable as I haue shewed it followes that it is not sufficient to end all controversies concerning things necessary And if in things profitable and very profitable that may seeme evident to one which to another may seeme obscure or even vntrue the same also may happen in things necessary in regard that all the Rules and industryes which Protestants assigne for finding the true sense of scripture are no less fallible in things necessary than in things very profitable But whatsoever your opinion be concerning things very profitable or profitable I take thence a strong argument and say 73. 13 Not only for things necessary but for things profitable also there cannot be wanting in Gods Church some meanes to end controversies touching them by declaring them with certainty and infallibility For although if things profitable be taken in particular and severally every one is no more than profitable yet speaking of a Community or a great Misticall body especially such a body as the Church of Christ is instituted by an infinite wisdome and ordayned to the sublime End of Eternall Happyness toward the attayning wherof every little advantage and help is not to be litle esteemed and the privation and want therof or euery errour therin is to be in like proportion avoyded things profitable taken as it were in generall ought in morall consideration to be judged necessary in such a body which otherwise would looke like a man conceyved with his Essence only devested of all accidents and integrant parts or like to his body indued with necessary parts only for example hart and braine without feete hāds eares eyes and other senses And therfor it cannot be imagined but that God hath left meanes in his Church for declaring truths and determining Controversyes in profitable poynts as occasion shall require The scripture of it self is most sacred and effectuall to the conversion of sinners and convincing of Heretikes if it be redd with sobriety and interpreted with submission of our vnderstanding to Gods Church Otherwise Experience shewes that men from it by the fault of men not of it take occasion of implacable and endless contentions without any possibility of remedy till they submitt their judgments and will to some infallible Living Guide For this cause also their Faith and Religion is sterill and barren as being deprived of Gods blessing for the conversion of nations to Christ fortold by the Prophets as a Priviledge of the true Church Thus the very name of Christ preached by some who were out of the Church was not efficacious to the casting out of divells Act. 19.15 yea contrarily the divell so prevayled against them that they fled out of that house naked and wounded V. 16. Even so the scripture out of the Church is neither effectuall for concord among Christians nor for the conversion of Infidels to Christ 74. 14. What I haue sayd about the necessity of profitable things considered as it were in generall and consequently of some meanes to determine controversyes concerning them may be confirmed by a discourse of yours Pag. 9. N. 6. where you say VVe are bound by the loue of God and loue of Truth to be Zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable Mark any way and not only Very profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved Our Saviour himself having assured vs Matth. 5.19 That he that shall break one of his least Commandements some wherof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shal be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven And Pag 277. N. 61. you teach that God hath promised such an assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable Truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours Which words are directly against yourself whom we haue heard saying That if controversyes touching things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Wheras here you say of things any way profitable that by the loue of God and loue of Truth and obligation of conscience and vnder payne of being the least in the kingdome of Heaven that is of being excluded from the kingdome of Heauen according to S. Chrysostome and Theophylact who interpret minimus the least to signify nullus none at all we are bound to be zealous in the defence of them A great zeale indeed to maintayne that if debates concerning them could not be ended but continued or increased it were no matter Do you not through your whole Booke teach that all errours against revealed truths are breaches of Gods command and are in themselves damnable and will effectually proue such if ignorance do not excuse or a generall Repentance do not obtaine pardon for them How then is it no matter if they remayne vndecided or that there be no meanes to decide them Is it no matter whether one by breaking one of Gods commandements be least in the kingdome of Heaven As for your Parenthesis that we pretend some of the commandements to be concerning veniall sins the keeping wherof is not necessary to salvation I say it is either vntrue or impertinent For if you meane that we pretend some errour against any least revealed Truth sufficiently proposed to be a veniall sin it is very vntrue You know that Cha Ma doth teach the contrary through his whole work and theron grounds the maine scope of his Booke That of two disagreeing in Poynts of Faith or Objects revealed by God and sufficiently propounded one committs a deadly sin and without repentance cannot be saved If you meane
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
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
Constantinople and the Greek Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receyved in Africa as Canonicall by the Decree of the African Councell And therfor you were ill advised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M or Magnus the great wheras he was no Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those commentaryes vpon Job Thus farr Cha Ma 55. As for your demand whether before Sixtus Quintus his tyme our Church had a defined canon of scripture or not I Answer We had the same Canon then which we haue novv and vvhich the sacred councell of Trent hath set dovvne Sess 4. decreto de Canonicis scripturis The church had alvvayes the same Canon that is she never declared by any decree any bookes to be Apocryphall at one tyme vvhich she admitted for Canonicall at another One Councell may omitt or not mention some booke vvhich another specifyes but can never declare it to be Apocryphall or not canonicall to vvhich contrariety only private persons are obnoxious But yet although our church had not set do vvne the canō of scripture it is very improper for you to object then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was scripture and what was not For do not Protestāts till this day disagree about the canon of scripture and so are not able to define vvhat is scripture and what is not yea they positively deny some books to be scripture vvhich others of them affirme to be Canonicall It is true I cannot properly say that for 1500 yeares they haue not defined any canon because they haue no such ancient being But I must say although they should last 1500 millions of yeares they vvould never be able to set dovvne any certaine canon as not having any assured ground for vvhich one part should yield to another And still I must be putting you in mynd of the difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants that vve vvho believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost are sure that she cannot deceaue vs vvith false or Apocryphall scriptures nor obtrude any false canon vvheras you vvho rely vpon scripture alone and yet can haue no certainty vvhat is the true canon as appeares both by your mutuall disagreements and because you haue no certaine infallible meanes to knovv vvhat is true scripture can haue no security for your faith in regard you haue no certainty concerning the totall rule therof 56. Your other Demand Whether our Canon of scripture vvas that vvhich vvas set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it be vvell considered is to speake truth exoticall for to the demand vvhat books be Canonicall the direct and right Ansvver is that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture for example Genesis Exodus Psalmes foure Gospells c vvhich Demand and Ansvver abstract from that other question about different Translations and Editions And vvho vvill aske vvhether the Septuagint or Aquila or Luther Calvin Beza Castalio set out a different Canon of scripture I meane for those bookes in which they agree that they are Canonicall and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon or books of scripture are most different Or if you will haue these demands to be all one seing both the Hebrew and Greeke books are corrupted as Calvin confesses your answer to your owne Demand must be that no true canon of scripture can be found and then woe be to Protestants whose Faith and salvation depends vpon the true canon of scripture If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement I Answer They sett forth no different canon but the selfsame to wit those books which before their tyme made vp the canon of scripture And as for the edition of Sixtus it is no good dealing in you to doe in this as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory concealing the large and cleare Answer which Cha Ma gaue to the same objection made by Potter Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3. where by the Authenticall Testimonyes of Persons aboue all exceptiō he shewed that the Decree of Sixtus about his edition was never promulgated that he himself had declared diverse things to haue crept in which needed a second review and that the whole work should be re-examined which he could never do being prevented by death 57. But good Sr. Reflect I beseech you that in this and the like Demands you give deadly wounds to Protestants who profess to rely vpon scripture alone and yet cannot possibly haue any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted by the Hebrew or Greek Texts which they acknowledg to be corrupted and much less by Translations of Protestants who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errours in their Translations as Cha Ma hath shewed Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16. which I wish the Reader for the Eternall good of his soule to peruse and reflect that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith and yet he either is sure that some Texts therof are corrupted or at least not sure but that they are so he cannot be obliged to belieue any one Text nor can in Matters of Eternity rely theron as in case divers meates were set before me wherof I know some to be poysonous and I haue no meanes to discerne them from the other I cannot safely touch any one of them But the matter passes in a far different manner with vs Catholiks as I haue often sayd and must often repeate We being sure that the church can neither approue any least corruption nor ground vpon it any Point of Faith and so a corruption in a true booke of Scripture can no more hurt vs then false Scriptures or Gospells which were vented in the primitive church could prejudice those Christians Nevertheless although as I sayd the church cannot approue any false translation yet she is not obliged at all tymes to declare one for Authenticall till all circumstances considered there appeare some necessity therof as the sacred Councell of Trent did by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations published by moderne Heretiks in favour of theyr heresies and for other just causes Luther himself Lib contra Zwing de verit Corporis Christi in Euchar was at length foroed to confess that If the world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councells and to haue recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now raigne 58. To that which you say in the same N. 29. suppose it had bene true that never any Booke after reteyving had bene Questioned how had this bene a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what moode or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly 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 If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
suppose you will not deny but that he can and then seing one cannot be a Saint or a converted sinner or persever to the end except by free Actions of the will proceeding from Grace you must grant that the congruous and efficacious Grace of God may consist both with freedome of our will aÌ„d infallibility in Gods fore-sight I sayd that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles Now I add your Arguments proue not only against the fallibility of the Church and Apostles but also of Christ our Lord in your wicked doctrine that he is not God nor Consubstantiall to his Father but only man and then your demands enter whether he were moved by his Father resistibly or irresistibly And the same answer you giue for Him must be given for his Apostles and his Church You say Pag 86. N. 63. God gaue the Wâ—semen a starr to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starr that was left to their liberty But this instance makes against your self for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the starr and performe that for which he preseÌ„ted it to their eyes and gaue light to their vnderstandings and efficacy to their wills that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentils by their meanes as S. Leo serm 1. de Epiphan saith Dedit aspicientibus intellectum qui praestitit signum quod fecit intelligi fecit inquiri He who gaue the signe gaue them also light to vnderstand it and what he made to be vnderstood he made to be sought after where the word fecit signifyes that God did moue them effectually and yet we haue no necessity to say that they were necessitated 66. By what we haue sayd is answered a wild discourse which you make Pag. 87. N. 95. about the Popes calling the Councell of Trent which I haue shewed might be done both freely and yet proceed from the infallible fore-knowledg and Motion of the Holy Ghost And what you say of the Pope may be applyed against the Apostles and other Canonicall Writters why they did delay so long to write Scripture and whether they were moved to it resistibly or irresistibly c. 67. I conclude that togeather with the Church you impugne the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles and consequently of their Writings which forces me to repeat that according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith and much less a sufficient Rule though it were supposed to contayne all necessary Points of Faith 68. Your 9. and most capitall Errour remaynes wherby you depriue scripture of certainty and infallibility and make both it and the contents of it lesse credible than the Books of prophane Authours and things related in them I meane your Assertion that we know Scripture to be the word of God not by an infallible private Spirit or by vndoubted criteria or signes appearing in Scripture it self as some other Protestants teach nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost according to the Doctrine of Catholikes but from the Tradition of all Churches meerly as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Errour and as their consent is derived to vs by History and humane Tradition The private Spirit which must be tryed by Scripture and not Scripture by it and those pretended manifest signes found in Scripture it self are meere fopperyes confuted by the experience of so many learned men who hertofore haue differed and of Protestants who at this day differ about the Canon of Scripture and this forceth you to say to your Adversary Pag 69. N. 46. That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it self alone but by some extrinsecall Authority you need not proâ—e for no wise man dâ—nyes it And therfor wheras Protestants teach that the Church is only an inducement and not the certaine ground for which we belieue Scripture you in opposition to them affirme that those criteria or signes are only Inducements but that the ground to receyve Scripture is the Church in the manner I haue declared Out of these considerations you choose rather to be sacrilegious then seeme to be simple or no wise man and therfor teach that Christian Faith is not infallibly true but only probable Which being a doctrine detested by other Protestants and by all respectiyely who profess any Religion and Worshipp of God it followes that we must receyue Scripture from the Church of God acknowledged to be infallible This being once granted we must further say that Her infallibility is vniversall in all things concering matters of Faith and Religion neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority to proue the Church infallible in this Point alone For to omitt other Reasons you must proue that Authority by some other and so without end In the meane tyme we haue reasoÌ„ to bless our good God who hath forced ProtestaÌ„ts at length to see the foolery of a private spirit and the vanity of manifest signes pretended to be found evidently in scripture and so come either to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods church or with Atheists and enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith by setling the truth therof vpon humane fallible tradition which say you Pag. 72. N. 51. is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men And Pag 53. N. 3. you teach that scripture may be judge of all controversyes those only excepted wherin the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall Reason the only Principle beside scripture which is common to Christians Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible naturall Reason But now let vs shew the falshood of this your Errour 69. First it is an argument of no small waight that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholikes and Protestants and in the consequence which inavoidably followes it namely that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible wherin as I sayd you contradict all Christians and all men who profess any Religion 70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I haue proved which it could not be if the ground on which it relyes were fallible 71. 3. It hath bene proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God and in all occasions requires the supernaturall influence of the Holy Ghost which yet could not be necessary if Faith were but a fallible conclusion evidently deduced from a Principle not in Christianity but in naturall reason as we haue heard you profess and vpon that ground affirme that Christian Faith is only probable not raysing our Vnderstanding aboue the probability of humane inducements wherin it differs froÌ„ the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholike Divines speake and by which
practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the church fall into Errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe 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 fail 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 therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or
so all comes to be vncertaine vnless we admit some infallible Living guide 78. But here I must reflect how apt you are in every occasion to write contradictoryes You say of the places of Scripture wherby we proue the in fallibility of the Church that they are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other aâ—d made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority You say that those places are more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible which signifyes that it was not possible and yet a few lines after you affirme that it is possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it Is the same thing not possible aÌ„d possible or not possible aÌ„d yet not improbable Beside you say it is more likly those places which we alledg for the infallibility of the Church haue bene corrupted if it had been possible than any other aÌ„d made to speake as they do for our advantage Wherin you confess that actually some places of Scripture speake for our advantage and then who are you to controwle Gods Word and speak against those for whose advantage it speakes Morover you say no proof can be pretended for the infallibility of the Church but incorrupted places of Scripture where you signify that nothing can be proved vnless we know certainly what places be incorrupted Now I aske whether it was possible for vs to corrupt those places which we bring to proue the infallibility of the Church or it was not possible If it were not possible then you wrong vs in saying that it is both possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it If it be possible then as I sayd what certainty haue you that we haue not done it seing you say it is both possible and not improbable that we haue done so Or what certainty can you haue that others haue not done the like in other Texts for defence of their severall Doctrines 79. Lastly You still go vpon a false ground that we cannot proue the Church otherwise then by Scripture wheras we must first proue Scripture by the Church 80. 8. How vncertaine your kind of Tradition is appeares by your owne words which are such as no enemy of Christian Religion could haue vttered more to the prejudice therof than you doe Pag 90. N. 101. Where in the Person of a member of the ProtestaÌ„t Church of England you speake to Catholiks in this manner You haue wronged so exceedingly his Christs Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine which might giue vs just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones what Authority haue you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her Who with forging so many false Storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the Faith of all Storyes Questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who haue brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of Christ ô portentuous vntruth and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make susptâ—ious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull I pray you what good Christians were there before Luther except Roman Catholiques and such as agreed with them And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholicks Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne vncorrupted For if you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so vpwards till we come to Chrict himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embryos yet hatching and in the shell Thus you and then conclude Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farr from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude seeing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 81. Now let the Reader consider 1. If the Roman Church and all those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther that is all true Churches of Christ be such a thing as he describes what can they contribute to make vp any part of his vniversall Tradition Yea she must needs make it suspected for false fallacious fraudulent And then what Tradition will remayne creditable or even considerable The Greeke Church agreed and at this day agrees with Catholiques against Protestants as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants for which cause they did directly refuse to joyne with Luther and his Associates The Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy or vse Circumcision or for the rest agree with the Greek and Roman Church and they can contribute little to your Tradition I desire the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I haue now sayd of the Greek and other Churches Since then you blast the credit of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her against Protestants there will remayne no Tradition at all 82. 2. You say That we by forging Miracles Might giue just occasion had you no assurance of them but our Authority to suspect the true ones of Christ and by forging so many false storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the faith of all Storyes questionable if you had no other ground for your belief of them but our Authority This is your Assertion or Major Proposition to which if an enemy of Christian Religion will subsume and add this Minor which is evidently true But you can haue no assurance of Miracles and ground for belief of Storyes but by our Testimony or Tradition as I haue clearly proved What will be the Conclusion but this That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ and Question all Storyes Behold the effect of your Tradition This I confirme out of what you
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you
haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Traditiō But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō that is they must either renoūce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may
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
which differences the vnlearned amongst them being not able to judg they cannot prudently joyne themselves rather to one than another Sect as for the same reason they being not learned cannot prudently conceiue themselves able to convince vs out of Scripture no more than they can judg what company of Sectaryes is to be preferred before all other seing the learned Protestants cannot convince one another especially if we remember that they assigne for vnderstanding the sense of Scripture many Requisites and Rules which exceed the capacity of the vnlearned who therfor must resolue either to be of no Religion at all which no man indued with the common light of reason can resolue or els must judg that they may safely and ought constantly to imbrace the Catholique Roman Religion which if they doe their proceeding being prudent God will not be wanting to affoard them his supernaturall concurrence for the production of an Act of Faith even though we should suppose that the particular immediate reasons which induce them to this resolution be not of themselves certaine and infallible but yet such as all circumstances considered are prudent and the best that occurre in such an occasion Beside No Man of ordinary discretion knowledg and prudence though otherwise vnlearned can choose but haue heard that the Roman Religion is very ancient that divers learned Protestants thinke very well of it and of those who dy in that profession yea expressly grant that divers whom they belieue to be Saints in Heaven did liue and dye in our Religion they see evidently that we agree among ourselves that great Miracles haue bene wrought in our Church with the happy success of converting Infidells to Christian Religion Wheras contrarily for every one of the sayd considerations it is evident that Protestants cannot chaleng them yea they profess that before Luther the world was in darkness and that their reformation began with him that we hold no Heretike whether Protestant or other can be saved without repentance and yet as I sayd that the most learned among Protestants grant Vs salvation that they haue no peace among themselves nor can ever hope for it that they profess Miracles to haue ceased that they do not so much as endeavour to convert Nations and yet every Christian believes that Christ commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospell to Nations for their conversion these things I say and divers other are so manifest that the vnlearned cannot be ignorant of them and therfor no Protestant can prudently adhere to any particular Sect. 22. You in particular who teach that Christian Faith is but probable must profess that even learned Protestants haue no infallible ground for their Faith For if they had such a ground and did certainly know it to be such their Faith would be infallible which you deny But this head of vncertainty doth nothing at all touch Catholikes learned or vnlearned who vnanimously believe Christian Faith to be absolutely certaine and infallible Out of these grounds I come now to answer your Objections 23. You aske Pag 93. N. 108. How shall an vnlearned man ignorant of Scripture know watch of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church 24. Answer This Demand must be answered by yourself who profess to belieue the Scripture for the Authority of the Church as for the chief ground of such your belief and other Protestants acknowledg the Church to be an inducement to belieue it How then do you and they independently of Scripture or before they belieue Scripture know which of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church The Church was before Scripture and might still haue continued without Scripture in which respect there cannot want evident Notes to distinguish between the true and false Church even for the vnâ—â—arned if they will apply themselves to cooperate with the occasions and Grace which Goind his Goodness never failes to offer 25. But then say you ibidem seeing men may deceive and be deceyved and their words are not demonstrations how shall he be assured that what they say is true Answer First the Notes and Markes of Gods Church are so patent that every one may evidently see them vpon condition that he be not negligent in an affaire of so great moment 2. I haue shewed already that the Meanes by which infallible grounds of Faith are applyed to every one need not be of themselves infallible as also I haue declared the difference between vnlearned Catholikes and Protestants in this behalf Now the true Church being once found your other Objections are of no force For that Church infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost cannot faile to make Decrees and conserue or renew and communicate them to faithfull people as need shall require A thing not hard to be done in the Catholike Church professing obedience to one supreame Head the Vicar of Christ and Successour to S. Peter who by subordinate Prelates and Pastours can easily and effectually convey Decrees Ordinations and Lawes to all sorts of Persons 26. You say Pag 94. N. 108. even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning divers things whether they be de fide or not But this can apport no prejudice to the vnlearned yea nor to the learned so that they all stand prepared and resolved to belieue and obey what the Church shall determine which as I haue often sayd she will be sure to doe when it shall be necessary for the good of soules and to doe it so as her voyce shall be clearly heard and vnderstood by one or more decrees and declarations Thus we see Generall Councells haue declared divers Points of Faith after they began to be controverted by some and found meanes to notify them to Catholikes of all sorts I beseech you what Christians after the ancient and sacred Councell of Nice were ignorant that Arius and is followers your progenitours were condemned for denying our Saviour Christ to be the Son of God true God and equall to his Father Or what Catholike in these latter tymes is ignorant that Heretikes hold and haue bene condemnd for holding divers Errours contrary to the belief and practise of the Catholique Church as making the signe of the Crosse The Reall presence and Adoration of our Saviour Christ in the B. Sacrament the Sacrifice of the Masse Prayers to the Saints in Heaven and for the Soules in Purgatory Worshipping of Images Seaven Sacraments observing of set feasts and fasts vow of Chastity for Persons in holy Orders and Religious men and woemen and the like 27. You vrge Pag 94. N. 108. How shall an vnlearned man be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of Decrees made by the Church then of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them And then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herin vpon the vncertaine and
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine 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 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
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
purpose in these words We vtterly deny the Church to be an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls for to say so were to oblige ouerselves to find some certaine society of men of whom we might be certaine that they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentalls nor in declaring what is Fundament all And consequently to make any Church an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed To which Assertion of yours I subsume thus But there must be alwayes a visible Church discernable from all false Congregations which Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points of Faith Therfore there must alwayes be a discernable Church Infallible in all things she proposes and requires to be believed 83. Thirdly It is deduced That even according to the most rigid Protestants God doth not ordinarily affoard his Grace for bringing men to Faith by the only consideration of his Creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by other secet meanes but by teaching preaching and the like By which consideration we haue not only confuted what you sayd Pag 100. N. 123. that men might be made Faithfull without either necessity of Scripture or Church but that also is answered which you Object Pag 356. N. 38. where you aske Why should not I be made a true and Ortodoxe Christian by believing all the Doctrine of Christ though I cannot deriue my descent from a Perpetuall Succession that believed it before me To which demand the Answer is very easy and convincing to all such as against the Pelagians belieue true Christian Faith to be the Gift of God and producible only by his speciall Grace and Inspiration which he gives only by the meanes appointed in his Holy providence that is Preaching Teaching and Ministery of his visible Church as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith by Meanes of the Gospell as Paul tells vs that Faith comes by hearing And if any will take vpon them to belieue by force of naturall ReasoÌ„ or by RevelatioÌ„ in Scripture vnderstood by their owne wit aÌ„d interpretatioÌ„ they shall be sure to be miserably deceyved aÌ„d be far enough from exercising any true Act of Divine supernaturall Faith necessary to Salvation Now the Church by Divine Institution cannot consist without a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles to the worlds end and therfore God gives not his Assistance for the production of true Faith except by the Ministery of such a Church as is governed by Bishops though no man denyes but that he might haue done otherwise by ordaining and ordering another course of his holy Providence as Protestants will grant that God might haue saved men without Scripture though in their opinion de facto he will not do it but that it even taken alone is not only sufficient but necessary to salvation 84. Fourthly I deduce That the Premises considered it may justly appeare to every Christian very strange that Pag 150. N. 41. having cited these words of Charity Maintained If the Church be not an Infallible teacher why are we commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church You would answer in this manner For commands to sâ—eke the Church I haue not yet met with any and I belieue you if you were to shew them would be yourself to seeke But yet if you could produce some such we might seeke the Church to many good purposes without supposing her a guide Infallible And then for hearing and obeying the Church I would faine know whether none may be heard and obeyed but those that are infallible Whether particular churches Governours Pastors Parents be not to be heard and obeyed Or whether all these be infallible I wonder you will thrust vpon vs so often these worne out objections without taking notice of their Answers But all this is clearly confuted by what hath bene sayd already And 1. What Christian would not wonder as I sayd to heare you affirme that you haue not met with any commands to seeke the Church If the Ministery of the Church be the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith and as even yourself confess a necessary Introduction to it if Faith come by hearing if in Her only we con expect to find true Pastours and Doctours if it be necessary to know her as Calvin confesses if Faith remission of sins and salvation cannot be had except by her Meanes I beseech you are not these sufficient commands to seeke Her or rather may we not call this command of seeking her either the command of Commands or els a command implyed in all the commands of Believing Hoping Loving Repenting and seeking salvation seing these cannot be had but by seeking and finding her and is it not evident that if we be obliged to attaine an End we are bound to seeke out the Meanes which are necessary for that End Nay do you not speake inconsequently to yourself while you deny not but that there is a command to heare and obey the Church and yet deny that there is any command to seeke her It seemes you are indeed a child of Adam who would hide yourself from God and from those Superiours whom he hath appointed to guide and governe you in his place If one belieue that there are some whom by Gods appointment he is to heare and obey in order to Heaven and Happyness is it not his part or hath he not a most strict obligation to do his best endeavour to find out such persons or such a Congregation But say you we might seeke the Church to many good purposes without supposing Her a Guide Infallible No doubt but speaking in generall we may seeke one without supposing him to be a Guide Infallible as one may seeke some lost sheepe such as you are to bring them from Heresy to the Church and from Socinianisme to true Reason Which will not be guided by itself but by a Superiour Maister appoynted by God without supposing them to be Infallible Guides But when we seeke a Church from which alone we con learne with certainty required to Faith what Scripture is Canonicall and all Points of Faith necessary to salvation neither of which we can learne from Scripture we must suppose that Church to be Infallible Thus all they who belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith whether totall or not consequently belieue it to be infallible And Pag 35. N. 7. you confess 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 And if the Church were not Infallible one of those many good purposes which you fancy to yourself in seeking Her would be that we should certainly expose ourselves to danger of being perniciously deceived in matters concerning Eternall Salvation seing as I sayd we haue no other certaine and sufficient Meanes to belieue scripture and other Articles of Faith And now I beseech you tell me whether we heare and obey all particular
others might yet in himselfe and to himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a church that were invisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be himself infallible This I say is retorted For whosoever is infallible in him selfe is fit to be an infallible Guide to others per se loquendo and in actu primo and needs only that accidētall impediments bee removed as it happeneth in our case the Church being visible and spred over the whole world So that she can be hidden to no body but is furnished with all meanes of communicating her Doctrine to others Yourself and Protestants grant that the Church is a necessary introduction to Faith which she could not be if she were invisible or that none could know how to repayre to her for direction And then Protestants teaching that she is infallible in Fundamentall points it followes that she may be an infallible Guide in such points and in all other according to your owne inference And so I conclude that your difference of the Churches being infallible and an infallible Guide is vanished into nothing But enough of this Let vs now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide 89. I proue the infallibility of the Church by confuting a Reason or similitude much vrged by our Adversaryes That to him who knowes the way a Guide is not necessary And therfore the Scripture being a plaine Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith no living Guide will be necessary 90. But this Argument is many wayes defectiue 1. We retort it Seing it hath bene proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule a Living Guide must be necessary Certainly if the whole Bible had bene put into severall mens hands without any precedent knowne Tradition Declaration or Ministery of the Church it would haue fallen out that in the most important Mysteryes of Christian Religion which now all are obliged to belieue for example The chiefest Articles of the Creed Sacraments c. scarcely any one would haue agreed with another and much more had it bene impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture to joyne in the same Idea or frame of a Church Suppose then the Bible had bene offered to some Vnderstanding Pagan wholy ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine do you thinke he would haue bene able to gather from the bare words of Scripture the same meaning or Articles which Christians now belieue by the help of Tradition instruction and preaching I say he would never have fallen vpon the same meaning of the words whether he did belieue them to be true or no as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree Which is a signe that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those Mysteryes which Christians belieue them to containe Otherwise every one who vnderstands the words would vnderstand the true sense as ordinarily we vnderstand the meaning of other writings wherin we see men do seldome disagree And the more we consider the force vse and necessity of Tradition the more we shall be constrained to ranke it among those things which are better knowen by wanting than we can apprehend by alwayes enjoying them If men did do things only by the Booke even in mechanicall arts or handy-crafts how different and vnlike works would every one take from the precepts learned only by reading and with how much study and difficulty would that be done and how different would they be both from one another and from those which artificers do now by custome and tradition worke with great ease and vniformity I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his booke or pharmacopaeia without any master at all 91. Secondly If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be knowen but that indeed it is such as there cannot possibly be given any Rule or Direction how to find or walk in it without danger of errour such a knowledg of such a way would not be sufficient of itself but a guide would be necessary to sind and walke in it without danger Now we haue shewed not only that the Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed for which therfor we stand in need of a guide but also that there is no certaine infallible Rule how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it containes which we proved out of Protestants themselves and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose and by their perpetuall and irreconciliable differences which could not happen if they had any such cleare and certaine Rules wherin agreeing they must needs agree among themselves Que sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se Therfore beside scripture which you compare to a way there must be a living Judg to guide vs in that way 92. Thirdly You teach That Scripture is a plaine way in this sense that although we cannot either by it or any other Meanes know what points in particulat be Fundamentall yet because all such Truths and many more are evident in Scripture whosoever knowes all that is evident shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamentall Now this very Doctrine shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a plaine and sufficient way For to know precisely and certainly all evident places of Scripture is impossible to many and of obligation to none as I declared elswhere and therfore the End which is to know all necessary points and can be attayned by this Meanes alone cannot be of obligation which to affirme is absurd as if one should say points necessary to be knowen are not necessary to be knowen By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoyded we being sure that the Church will not faile to propose in due tyme all that shall be necessary without imposing on mens Consciences heavy and vngrounded burthens 93. Fourthly There is a great and plaine disparity betweene the knowing of a way by our corporall eyes and finding out a Truth by our vnderstanding the eye of our soule Our senses are naturally necessarily and immoveably determined to their objects One who is supposed to know his way perfectly may Voluntarily take an other way but cannot therfore be sayd to mistake his owne It passes not so with our vnderstanding except in some prime principles of Reason evident of themselves In other points which either are elevated above the naturall forces of humane capacity or haue an appearance of being contrary to it or crosse our will or cary with them a repugnance to the naturall dictates and inclinations of flesh and bloud our vnderstanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled as daily experience teaches and therfore stands in need of some assisting help and Authority believed to be infallible to strengthen and settle it against all encounters and temptations It is your owne Assertion Pag 329. N.
Errour and embracing the contrary Fundamentall Truth and so cannot be sure that he hath true Repentance vnless he know in particular what Truths and Errours are Fundamentall And you deliver a very pernicious Errour in saying Pag 159 N. 52. whosoever dyes with Faith in Christ and contrition for all sinnes knowen and vnknowen in which heape all his si full Errours must be comprized can no more be hurt by any the most maâ—ignant and pestilent Errour then S. Paul by the Viper which he shooke of into the fire For if he remayne in his Errour about Fundamentall Points he wants the contrary actuall explicite belief of them which is supposed to be absolutely necessary to Salvation and so he will not cast that viper but it will cast him into the fire His Errour then which is supposed to be Fundamentall must be knowen to him and being knowen to be an Errour eo ipso it is rejected since our vnderstanding cannot assent to a knowen falshood and therfore cannot be comprized in the heape of sinfull Errours knowen and vnknowen but must be distinctly knowen and forsaken 22. How can you say that all Protestants agree touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Savioâ—r of the worâ—d They may agree in the words or Grammaticall signification of them as any boy Turke Jew or Infidell could not but doe if they vnderstood the toung wherin those words were set downe But for the sense you could scarcely haue picked out Articles of greater moment and withall lesse agreed on among Protestants since every word discovers their irreconciliable differences concerning them and yet which is well to be observed they concerne points of practise and things absolutely necessary to salvation as we haue heard you confess and therfore an errour in them is damnable without all remedy 23. Let vs cast an eye vpon every word Repentance Protestants are not agreed wherin true Repentance consists as may be seene in Bellarmine de Poenit Lib 1. Chap 7. Lib. 2 Chap 4. and you in particular hold a Dòctrine different from the rest That Attrition alone is sufficient and that whether it be Attrition or Contrition it requires the extirpation of all vicious habits which you say is a thing of difficulty and tyme and cannot be performed in an instant and what sinner though repenting himself never so hartily at the houre of his death can be saved with this your kind of Repentance which at that houre is an impossible thing From dead works What will you vnderstand by dead works You know many chiefe Protestants hold all our best works to be of themselves not only dead but deadly sinnes and so Repentance of dead workes must signify Repentance that ever we haue done any good that we haue believed hoped and loved God and our neighbour obeyed our Parents kept any of the Commandements c And if you consider the person from whom they proceed in case he be predestinated no sin can hurt him whatsoever he doe To the former Repentance is needless to the latter fruitless How then do Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead workes or in Repentance itself For the second Point Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world there is not one word wherin Protestants agree for the sense Faith You say A probable Faith is sufficient all others deny it professiing that Christian Faith necessary to salvation must be infalible and therfory you cannot be saved by your kind of Faith even by the doome of Protestants and in that respect all men who haue care of their soules ought to detest your Doctrine and Booke But do those other Protestants agree among themselves what Faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation They do not Some hold that Faith necessary and sufficient for Justification is that wherby one believes certainly that his sinnes are forgiven and that they are forgiven even by believing so according to which Doctrine what necessity can there be of Repentance Seing men are justifyed precisely by such a Faith and how then did you tell vs that Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works Of which strang kind of Faith He whom you call the learned Grotius in his Discussio Riveriani Apologetici c Pag 2â—0 saith very truly Evangelij vox haec est Resipiscite Facite fructus dignos Poenetentiae adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies donec hodie nominetur vt non obduretur quis ex vobis fallacia peccati Terra proferens spinas tribulos proxima est maledictioni cujus consummatioin combustionem At Riveti eique similium longè alia agendiratio remissa tibi sunt peccata Vnde id sciam Debes id credere At quo Argumento cum non remitantur omnibus Remissa sunt credentibus Et quid credentibus Remissa sibi esse peccata Mirus verò circulus Ita si istos sequimur remissio est causa credendi nihil enim credi debet factum esse nisi quod factum est contra credere causa remissionis quia conditio est requisita ad remissionem Haec verè sunt inextricabilia Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Who is ignorant how deeply Protestants disagree in these points You Socinians absolutely deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father and Potter Pag 113.114 cites the doctrine of some whom he termes men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to loue and honour Iesus Christ are in the Visible Christian Church and by Catholikes to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment cited by Potter is Thomas Morton who in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel teaches that the Churches of Arians who denyed our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they hold the Foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Son of God and saviour of the world Which are your very words Wherin appeares your hypocrisy in calling Christ the Son of God which men will conceaue you vnderstand as all good Christians do that he is consubstantiall to his Father wheras you meane only as the Arians did that he was the Son of God by conjunction of will or some such accidentall way aÌ„d so ProtestaÌ„ts do not agree in a point simply necessary Saviour of the world For SociniaÌ„s deny Christ to haue satisfyed for the sins of the world as may be seene in Volkelius Lib 4. Cap 2. and Cap 22. against other Protastants who in an other extreme hold that he alone satisfied so as no satisfaction is required at our hands though wee tell them that such our satisfaction depends on and taks all its valve from his You are an excellent advocate for Potter seing you differ from him in this Point which Pag 242. he calls that most important and
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
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith 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 In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
the Church haue no Charity and therfore that it is manifestly vntrue that if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnion dissolved seing men may be members of the Church though they want all Charity and consequently if Charity be wanting it is not necessary that the vnion of the Church must be dissolved Or if you grant to Potter that Charity is the cause that the vnity of the Church is not disturbed and Her vnion not dissolved what is this but to say with Charity Maintayned That All the members of the visible Church are by Charity vnited in one mysticall Body Why is Her vnion dissolved if Charity be wanting but because by Charity it is conserved You say Pag 273. N. 56. That if we suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all Points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoined himselfe to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in externall Communion which was impossible but by the vnion of Faith and Charity If one should aske how do you know that Luther had Charity or whether he might not haue been a member of that imagined Church though he had been in deadly sin what would you answer sure I am whatsoever you answer for Potter ād yourselfe will confute your objection against Charity Maintayned and shew how familiar Contradictions are with you as in our present case you must either grant that Luther if he chanced to be in deadly sin could not vnite himselfe to that imaginary Church or els that Charity is not necessary to constitute one a member of a Church and consequently that one may be a member of the Church and free from the sin of Schisme though he want that Charity which is incompatible with deadly sin and inseparable from justifying Grace vpon condition that he be innocent of that vice against Charity which we call Schisme and puts a man so farr out of Charity with the Church or with his neighbour as a member of the Church as not to communicate with him in Sacraments Liturgy and publike Worship of God Neither is there any necessity that whosoever offends against a vertue for example Charity must offend in all Excesses or Defects or other offenses that may be committed against it To be a good Man a good Citizen a good Magistrate are considerations very different and separable one from another And therfore Charity Maintayned Chap 5. N. 3. told you that our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to an other or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church And who sees not that a man who is in state of deadly sin and therfore loves not God aboue all things may loue his neighbour in such a degree as not to wish or procure his death as also one may want Charity to an other as a private person without separating from him as a member of one Church in which they agree ād communicate 99. Object 6. Pag 255. N. 5. You cite the words of Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do coucurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words Which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 100. Answer It were strang if you did not know that in this particular we haue no common or vniversall Tenet neither can there be any difficulty in the thing it selfe but the Question must haue much only de nomine and Bellarm teaches Faith to be necessary that one may be sayd to be vnited by internall vnion to the Body of Christ which is the Church And though he holds that secret infidells belong to the Church yet he expressly declates that some other Catholique Writers are of a contrary opinion and Lib 3. de Eccles Cap 10. He saith We follow the manner of speaking of the greater number declaring therby this Question to be only de modo loquendi of the manner of speaking So farr is he from judging the contrary to be repugnant to our grounds as you intolerably overlash But suppose it were as you say Where I pray you doth Charity Maintayned say that the Catholike Church signifyes one company of Faithfull people faithfull I say by internall Faith and not only by the externall profession of it He saith no such thing as appeares by his words cited in the beginning of your Objection And therfore seing he doth not express whether they must be faithfull by true internall Faith or only by externall profession of the true Faith but his words being generall they are certainly true in all opinions to witt that Faith is required to make one a member of the Church not determining whether that Faith must be internall or whether an outward profession be sufficient to that effect Sure I am this is no faithfull dealing in you 101. Object 7. In this same Pag 255. N. 5. You alledge Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do concurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 102. Answer Charity Maintayned never said that all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours do make one company which is the Church But these be his words Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. Our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to another or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church Is not all this evidently true May not our neighbour be considered either as he is a private person or as a member of the Church concurring with other members to make one congregation De facto diverse persons concurre to make one Church and therfore they may be so considered But where doth Charity Maintayned say all those which a Christian is to esteeme his neighbours do concurre to make one Church This particle all and the words is to esteeme are your falsifications not the words of Charity Maintayned who spoke of Heresy and Schisme which can happen only amongst Christians And therfore allthough even Pagans and infidells ought to be esteemed our neighbours yet they cannot concurre to make one congregation which we call the Church which were the words of Charity Maintayned And so they could not enter into this consideration but we may say in this case what is it to me to judge of them that are without 1. Cor 5.12 103. Object 8. Charity Maintayned Part 1 Pag 154 N. 4. saith The Catholique Church signifyes one Congregation or Community of faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them faithfull believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them
to proue your assertion and yet he L. 3. expresly speaks of a fals report venturos esse Paulum MachariuÌ„ two Embassadours sent into Africa by the pious Catholique Emperour Constans qui interessent Sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur proferreat illâ— Imaginem of the Emperour quam primò in altari ponerent sic Sacrificium offerretur Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholiques that Sacrisice is due only to God I beseech the Reader to reade Baronius Ann. 348. N. 33.34 I wonder how you durst at that tyme when you wrote and published your Booke write that setting pictures in Churches and vpon Altars may yield just cause to separate from a Church at that tyme I say when pictures began to appeare in English Protestant Churches even in the vniversityes and still I haue fresh occasions of wondering that ever your Booke could be approved Do not Lutherans to this day set vp Images in their Churches The wickleffists and Hussites and diverse learned Protestants allow of Images yea and some defend even the worshipping of them as may be seene in the Triple Cord Chapt 17. Sect 4. as also learned Protestants confesse that diverse Fathers defended the vse and worship of Images and that Xenaias was condemned for being the first that stirred vp warr against Images which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius And Nicephorus Hist Eccles Lib 16. Cap 27. saith Xenaias iste primus ô audacem animam os impudens vocem illam evomuit Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse See of this whole matter Brierley Tract 1. Sect 3. Subdivis 12. Pag 124. And Tract 1. Sect 8. Subdivis 2. Pag 214. And Bellar Tom 2. de Reliq Sanct Lib 2. Cap 6. saith That Xenaias was a Persian and a barbarous fellow yea and a fugitiue 〈◊〉 and though he was not baptized yet faining himselfe a Christian he crept into a Bishoppricke And de notis Eccles Lib 4. Cap 9. demonstrates out of S. Epiphanius Lactantius S. Basil S. Greg Nyssen S. Paulinus S. Athanas and others That pictures were wont to be placed in Churches And S. Austine himselfe Lib 1. de consensu Evangelistar Cap 10. witnesseth that in his tyme in many places Christ was to be seene painted between the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul And Lib 22. cont Faust Cap 73. he saith the same of the History of Abraham going about to sacrifice his Son Now I beseech you tell me whether vse of Images in Churches be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church or no If it be then the Donatists might haue reason to depart from the Church seing pictures were set vp both in and before S. Austines tyme and while to vse your owne wordes the whole world of Christians was vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner If it were not why do you in this place object to vs the vse of Pictures and say that S. Austine to avoyd the objection of the Donatists that Catholikes set Pictures vpon the Altar answered only by denying that to be true which they objected as if they might haue beene excused from Schisme if indeed Pictures had beene set vpon the Altar And must Protestants depart from the Communion of all those their Brethren who at this day defend the lawfullness and practise the setting vp of Images in Churches In the meane time they who impugne the vse and worsh ip of Images may consider in Xenaias what Progenitors they haue And heere to shew how even by the light of naturall reason the respect or irreverence which is donne to the Image redounds to the Prototypon I cannot omit to set downe the words of Nazarius in panegir Constantini in detestation of the fact of Maxentius in defacing aÌ„d throwing downe the Images of Constantine Ecce enim proh dolor verba vix suppetunt venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio divini vultus litura deformis O manus impiae ô truces oculi ita non calligastis In quo lumen mundi obsucrabatis meritas ipsi poenas non imbibistis Nihil profecto gravius nihil miserius Roma doluisti What then shall we say of Iconoclasts or Image-breakers or Image-despisers not of mortall men as Constantine was then but of the Saviour of the world his Blessed Mother and Saints now glorious in Heauen O England reflect and repent 123. But not in this place only you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austine For Pag 259. N. 20. you say All that S. Austine saith is not true And I belieue heat of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to â—â—er-confute them transported him so farr is to vrge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true But it is no wonder if notorious Schismatiks as you are willingly take occasion to defend such famous Schismatikes as the Donatists were and to do it covertly and ex obliquo when you are ashamed to vnmaske yourselfe and proclaime it directly and openly And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently that S. Austine was clearly with vs in that place which Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 164. cited out of him as also in that other place which he cited Pag 165. wherof you say in your same Pag 259. N. 20. I cannot but wonder very much why he S. Austine should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches Visibility And Pag 119. N. 163. you say To S. Austine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderatly And Pag 168. N. 64. S. Austine when he was out of the heate of disputation confesses c. If any aske why Socinians are so averse from S. Austine I answer because in his workes he doth so often so zealously and so learnedly defend the Uisibility Perpetuity Amplitude Infallibility and Authority of Gods Church and with Arguments so direct against all our moderne Heretikes and Socinians in particular as it is impossible one can be a friend to that holy Doctour of Gods Church and an enemy to the Church of Rome A consideration of great comfort that we defend the same cause and suffer with a Person so holy and learned as Protestants when their owne cause is not touched are wont to preferr him before all other Ancient Fathers 124. Object 13. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag 107. proves That seing Protestants grant that the Church cannot erre in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferr that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one Point First because though she were supposed to erre yet the errour could not be Fundamentall nor destructiue of Faith
sin than Schisme yet adds this exception It may happen that some Schismatike may commit a greater sin than some infidell either by reason of greater contempt or the greater danger which he brings or for some like thing If this Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas say this comparing Schisme with true infidelity much more may we affirme it if we consider true Schisme on the one side and on the other only a false appearance or meere externall profession of errour or heresy As for those limitations of S. Thomas they may seeme to be prophecyes if we apply them to Luther and his fellowes in regard of the contempt which they shewed of all Prelats and the whole Church of the not only danger but reall and vnspeakable mischiefes which their Schisme did bring and of moreand greater inconveniences than could haue been believed or imagined if the world did not see and lament them So as we may well speake to them in the words of Ch Ma P. 1. P. 187. N. 23. What excuse can you faine to yourselves who for Points not necessary to salvation haue been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but vnavoidably accompany so huge a breach in Kingdomes in Commonwealths in private persons in publike Magistrates in Body in soule in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by war by famine by plague by bloud shedd by all sorts of imaginable calamityes vpon the whole face of the Earth wherin as in a mapp of Desolation the heaviness of your crime appeares vnder which the world doth pant 135. Some learned Divines speaking of invincible Perplexity giue this Doctrine that if I must either committ a veniall sin in a matter which of it selfe and per se loquendo is only veniall for example an officiously or expose my selfe to danger of a mortall sin I am obliged to chuse the lesser evill which in opinion of great Divines were in that case no sin at all rather than put my selfe in danger of the greater evill a deadly sin O into how certaine danger doth a Schismaticke precipitate himselfe beside the sin of Schisme of committing innumerable deadly sins and of being cause that innumerable other persons fall into the like offences against God and his neighbour And therfore men are obliged rather to vndergoe a less evill than to make themselves obnoxious to infinitly greater mischiefes and rather to profess exteriourly an errour not distructiue of salvation than to forsake the Communion of Gods Church within which God hath confined Remission of sins and Salvation Consider what we haue cited out of your owne words Pag 163. N. 56. If by adhering to the Church we could haue been thus far secured not to erre in Fundamentalls this Argument that in wisdome we must forsake the Church in nothing least we should forsake her in some thing necessary had some shew of reason and what you say N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one denomination Which if we had done and set vp some setled certain society of Christians for our Guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point In these words you grant that if any Church of one denomination were knowne to be infallible in all Fundamentall Points we might conclude though not certainly yet probably that you could not in wisdome forsake her in any Point for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point If the inference of Charity Maintayned be probable by your confession vpon that supposition of infallibility in some determinate Church for Fundamentall Points then you must grant that all objections to the contrary may be answered which I pray you doe and tell vs whether in that case it should be damnable to profess any knowne errour If it be damnable then you must forsake the Church in such Points which yet you say in wisdome one could not doe If it should not be damnable you must shew how it was not so and whatsoever you alledge for the defense of professing knowne errours and adhering to the Church even in that case will serue for defense of vs and a confutation of your owne objections against vs. Besides you say Charity Maintayned might haue some colour and reason in the case proposed of some determinate Churches infallibility in Fundamentalls to conclude that we could not in wisdome forsake such a Church in any Point for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point From which confession I inferr first that if in wisdome one ought not forsake in any Point a Church infallible in fundamentalls for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point much more they ought to conforme themselves to her in externall profesion and consequently that it is a greater evill to forsake her communion than to profess externally some vnfundamentall errour and Secondly that for feare of incurring a greater evill that is in our case a Fundamentall errour one may and ought to chuse the less which is the thing I haue endeavoured to proue and which vtterly evacuates the ground for which you pretend to excuse Luther and his followets Morover If you meane that one is not to profess any errour against his Conscience but that also he ought his submitt to judgment in all Points to a Church lieved to be infallible in Fundamentalls then you overthrow your owne ground and words N. 57. that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded And therfore if I consider what I doe and be perswaded that your Infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possible be Absolute and vniversall and Totall Thirdly vpon this your owne grant it followes clearly that Luther could not in wisdome forsake all Churches because Protestants grant that all Churches or the whole Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and therfore in wisdome could not be forsaken in any thing at all not that your first Protestants can be excused from Schisme in doing so But againe if they were obliged to submitt their judgment to the Church and had done so as indeed they ought to haue done their professing a Faith contrary to that of the Church as Luther did had been also to profess an errour contrary to their owne conscience and so whatsoever you say you are confuted by your owne grounds which appeares more by these your express words Pag 280. N. 95. What man of judgment will thinke it any disparagement to his judgment to preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therfore though Protestants
Point that I need not say one word to ponder your words or declare the force of them Pag 7. N. 3. You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therfore do we inferr Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation and more But we can never yield so much to you Pag. 85. N. 89. You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church And we haue heard you say Pag 16. N. 20. If she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique This you say and make good the like inference which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique and other like Assertions of his Pag 163. N. 56. You say From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she the Roman Church retaines and the practise of them may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon These Points of Christianity which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally marke how you professe to learne even out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures vs that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that belieue them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to vs certaine damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamentall and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by your owne Confession If we did not belieue as we profess we were no Roman Catholikes In the same place you say expressly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls yea you say Lin 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary wherof you affirme so often You example of Absalon was very ill applyed to the Roman Church which did not rebell from you but you against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father Pag 404. N. 29. you approue Dr. Potters saying Pag 79. which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as beleeue what they professe And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatioâ— Pag 401. N. 27 We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes The Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists If any soule may be saved in our Religion it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour with which no soule can be saved Pag 277. N. 61. you say The simple defect of some Truths prositable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seing therfore you haue so often confessed that we erre not in Fundamentall Points our errours in some Truths profitable only and not fundamentall may consist with salvation How then do you say to Catholiks Pag 401. N. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Herely and yielding you salvation neither He Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag 219. N. 50. speaking of Protestants you say They doe not disser at all â—n Matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mâ—ane by Matters of Faith such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be dâ—â—believed Now you know well that in Points of greatest moment which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants other Protestants stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag Pag 269. N. 45. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists For this cause you say that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church as Fundamentall Points are Therfore you suppose the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamentall Article Otherwise you had left her that is you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point Pag 272. N. 52. and Pag 283. N. 73. You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essentiall and Fundamentall Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag 272. N. 52. You say In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamentall Points Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith Therfore you grant that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag 401. N. 26. You confess that Dr Potter saith indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme Pag 133. N. 12. You say expressly By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well you make so open a Confession that we belieue much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I sayd aboue we will not because we cannot yield so much to you And here I must aske againe How you could say Pag 401. N. 27. As for
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
vpon prudent reasons and extrinsecall considerations which not to be wanting in our case appeares by reflecting That for the points controverted we haue the judgment and Authority of the Churches existent when Luther appeared that is of the vniversall Catholique Church if God had any Church on Earth as you grant he alwayes had And even yourselfe speaking of Councells say Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake Potter also Pag 165. Speaks fully in these words We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally Behold Councells are not only directiue but obliging they cannot be rejected Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience and may not so much as be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least Fundamentally that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ 161. Here it is reason I make a pause and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes First The vniversall Church according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants is infallible in fundamentall points and even according to â—hillingworth is infallible as long as she exists which he saith hath been from the beginning and shall last to the worlds end and so de facto she is infallible that is he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point as he is sure that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority without evident reason Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points aÌ„d yet that they oblige men to an outward submission much more he should say so of the Church which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls 162. Secondly seing Potter Chilling and Dr. Lawd whom I cited aboue teach that we are bound vnder sin to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith vnless we belieue as we professe we must belieue them to be infallible in all things least either we sin against Obedience due to them or against our Conscience professe what we do not belieue 163. Thirdly seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ their right to be obeyed is de jure Divino of which they were in possession when Luther arose and therfore it is a grievous sin not to obey them vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law or word of Christ 164. Fourthly seing their Decrees cannot be questioned but vpon evident reason it followes that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought and then found because people prepossessed by passion haue a mind to breake with the Church as it happens in all Schismatiks and Heretikes but their Arguments must be so pressing and irresistible by ceason of their evidence that the vnderstanding cannot by any meanes of contrary reason or command of the will forbeare to assent which to any judicious man must needs appeare to be a strange and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence and indeed impossible in objects of Faith which are obscure and exceed the naturall light of all humane reason 165. Fiftly Since they cannot be reversed but by an equall Authority and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine as we haue seene aboue we are assured that the Decrees of Councells before Luther could not be reversed by Luther or any other private person nor by all Protestants Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell and in those Colloquiums or Conferences or particular Synods which they held could never establish any vniversall Vnion among themselves but only declared to the world that they had no possible meanes of Vnion and Concord And indeed who should call such a Generall Councell Or who should preside therin Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes it would make little to their purpose seing absolute Princes are no more subject one to another than different Sects of Protestants will confesse any mutuall subordination 166. Sixtly Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre at least fundamentally they could not be opposed except by reason more than probable but men were to presume that they did not erre Neither should you say if they be carefull c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre which may be said of any two or three gathered togeather in Christs name if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth yea the same may be sayd of every particular person but contrarily seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ and that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth and that all are obliged to obey them which none could be in errours against Faith you should say because they cannot erre God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End And it were but a most rash vncharitable foolish and false imagination to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther replenished with men of learning sanctity and zeale of the Truth were not carefull in the vâ—â— of all good meanes for finding the Truth and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it nor Luther excused from Schisme and Heresy by opposing them and it 167. These things considered it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man how impossible it is that any such evidence should offer itselfe against the Faith and decrees of the Church or Generall Councells as can force the
esse novit Uerum est enim quod illa falsa sint No man can be sayd to know false things except by knowing they are false c But an errour is sinfull because he gives a culpable cause therof either by not vising diligence to find the truth in a matter of highest moment which is that vnum necessarium that one necessary Thing of which our saviour spoke and to which all other things are to be referred and therfore requires our chiefest and vtmost endeavour and all that may any way put it in hazard ought instantly to strike vs with a most deepe fright and move vs to fly from it tanquam a facie colubri as from the face of a serpent oâ— by reason of pride confidence in his owne witt or judgment or the like sinfull cause which must be knowne and voluntary in order to such an errour and ignorance otherwise they could not be sinfull as we haue seene out of your owne words that we cannot be obliged to that which is not in our power Now if the cause of such errour be sinfull and voluntary to say one may be pardoned of that sin without actually forsaking it is to say A sin may be repented and forgiven while one is actually persisting in the committing of it and seing to pardon a sin is to destroy it and to be committing it is to conserue it in being sin should be destroyed and conserved be and not be at the same tyme which is a manifest contradiction 20. But you say The sinner may haue Repentance of all sins knowne and vnknowne I answer You are in a great errour or inconsideration both concerning the nature of sin and of Repentance in supposing that either can sin be committed without all knowledge or that true Repentance can extend it self to a sin of which one is in Act of voluntary committing it For how doth he effactually detest and with his whole hart repent himselfe of it if he be yet voluntarily committing it And as for the other part All sin is voluntary and necessarily presupposes some kind of knowledge therof to proceede in the vnderstanding without which it were not voluntary nor vincible nor culpable but necessary and invincible or no sin at all Which being true in all sin much more must it be so in deadly and damnable sins as you affirme errours against Faith to be which require full knowledge and deliberation when they are first committed And this is particularly true in the subject of which we speake in regard that our good God whose will is that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of Truth never failes to be frequently preventing illuminating moving and strongly inciting the soules of men to embrace the true Faith Religion and church within which he hath confined salvation aÌ„d is continually speaking so lowd as he may be clearly heard aÌ„d so stroÌ„gly as every one must confess himselfe guilty if he do not obey aÌ„d hearkeÌ„ to a voyce so sweet forcible and Divine And therfore your Contrition of all sins knowne and vnknowne comes to be a meere sixion or illusion your Repentance of sins which one is actually committing to be a plaine contradiction and both of them to containe a most pernicious Doctrine To comprise all this matter in few words When you speake of sins not knowne if the ignorance be invincible it is no sin if vincible and culpable it doth not excuse from sin the Errour which proceeds from it and therfore cannot be forgiven as long as one is committing it no more than other sins against Gods Commandements for example hatred desire of revenge c. And how can want of knowledge excuse one who either sins by that very want of knowledge or that want of knowledge is the effect of his sin that is of culpable neglect to learne as a tâ—e want is not excused from the rot by ignorance proceeding from his voluntary neglect to study 21. Perhaps some may say I haue proved sufficiently that no Protestant or other Sectary can haue true Contrition of sins wholy vnknowne or when it is committing them or while he hath tyme to amend them neglects to doe it But the difficulty may seeme to remaine what is to be sayd of a Protestant at the point of death if he come to be particularly contrite of his former culpable negligence to seeke the true Religion but now hath no tyme to discusse particular Controversyes with a firme resolution to embrace that Faith which if God spare him life he shall by his Divine Assistance find to be true To this doubt I 22. Answer First That such a one cannot according to your Doctrine hope for Salvation which is never granted without true Repentance and this cannot be had at that moment of death when there is no tyme to roote out all vicious Habits which cannot be supposed to be few in persons who for worldly respects haue not cared to seeke out the true Religion on which every Christian believes the salvation of his soule to depend Secondly This case or supposition yields as much as Charity Maintayned intended to proue That a formall Protestant cannot be saved if he persist in Protestantisme For he who is hartily sory that he hath neglected to seeke the true Faith Religion and Church and conceives an obligation to haue vsed more diligence therin doth clearly doubt whether the Protestant Religion be true and theâ—by is no more a Protestant than he can be a Christian who doubts whether Christian Religion be true it being a true Axiome in Divinity dubius in side est infidelis He who doubts of his Faith is an infidell The reason is because Christian Divine Faith is infallible and certainly true and consequently cannot consist with any deliberate or voluntary doubt neither doth Christian Faith belieue any Article of Faith with greater certainty than that itselfe is certaine Whosoever therfore doubts whether Protestants Faith and Religion be true ceases to be a Protestant or to belieue Protestant Religion to be true with that firmnes of Faith which is required for Salvation And although such a pertinent sinner be not a Catholike by the actuall beliefe of those Points conceruing which he hath no tyme to be particularly instructed yet he is really and actually a Catholike by believing in voto or desire whatsoever the Church teaches and those errours of his which before were culpable only by reason of some culpable cause or neglect to seeke the truth while he had tyme to doe it after true and effectuall Contrition of such a sinfull cause remaine errours materially only and no sins till it be in his power to examine and reverse them just as vertuous persons in the true Church may by invincible ignorance hold some errour against Faith till they be better instructed And so the finall Conclusion will be that he who effectually repents his sin committed in omitting culpably to seeke the true Church and hath no possible meanes to examine matters
places And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say that in this particular he never touched the Point really seing he himselfe destroyes what himselfe might seeme once to haue builded 5. All that you haue N. 10. is answered by saying that it is damnable not to belieue any least Point which the Church proposes to be a Divine trurh that is as revealed by God till which tyme one may erre without Heresy Now to determine what Points in particular be so proposed were to run overall particular Articles of Faith Yet to your instances I answer briefly The Quarta decimani who held that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jewes were justly condemned of Heresy not precisely for the Circumstance of Tyme but for the ground of that Assertion that it was necessary to doe so which would haue brought with it a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jewes And therfore you say vntruly that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter But the keeping of Chrismass day ten dayes sooner or later goes vpon no such ground For I never heard that the Jewes kept our Saviours Nativity either according to the new or old Calendar As for believing that there are Antipodes if you can produce any Text of Scripture or definition of Gods Church I will hold it a matter of Faith Sure I am it is a matter of reason not to produce such impertinent examples as you doe The same I say of Predetermination that what the Church shall determine will become a matter of Faith The example of Millenaryes and necessity of Eucharist for Infants which last you vntruly Father vpon S. Augustine you are still obtruding vpon vs without proving what you say as also that S. Austine did not hold it as a matter of Faith that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power to judge of all appeales from all parts of the world and it is manifestly false that the Church ever determined the Doctrine of the Millenaryes or that S. Austine did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeales though for the Practise therof there might be just cause not to vse it promiscuously in all occasions You say Justine Martyr denyes that some good Christians held the contrary to the Millenaryes But even learned Protestants and more skillfull in the Greeke toung than you are interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense as I shew hereafter And in fine our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church and not what any particular Doctour might hold It seemes you hold it not to be a matter of Faith that Heretikes may giue true Baptisme but S. Austine held and Gods Church believes it to be such and by this example we proue that some Points are matter of Faith which are not evidently contained in Scripture 6. To your N. 13. I answer Charity Maintayned N. 6. said not that a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved is Atheisme but a ground of Atheisme yea he sayd not this absolutely but thus there is not a more pernicious Heresy or rather marke this modification a ground of Atheisme than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved Where you see such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheisme but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheisme than a pure or ordinary kind of Heresy And I pray is not a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance a ground and disposition either to deny the Deity which is to be worshipped ōly by a true Religion or not to care much for God or Religion And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintayned pronounced in generall except a Socinian or some such creature Yourselfe say N. 8. That to deny a thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God is to giue God the lye and to say that men may be saved who giue God the lye is it not a ground and disposition to end in Atheisme Potter saith Pag 212. Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the Divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that as such is may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity Why do you not question the Doctor and aske how he can be an infidell who believes the true God Remember your owne saying that the naturall fecundity of errour is to beget Errour And so what will follow of freedom and indifferency for all beliefes of which one only can be true but a flitting from one Errour to another till they hold no Religion at all But the truth is you could not impugne Charity Maintayned but by changing or rather falsifying the Question which was whether men of different Religions may be saved without repentance and you say they may be saved by repentance wherby it may seeme you do not deny but it were a ground of Atheisme to assirme that men of different Religions may be saved without any repentance though they liue and dy in their errour 7. The rest of your Answer being only an Answer to such Demands as Charity Maintayned proposed which haue been handled at large in other places I will only briefly note First what you say Pag 18. N. 26. in these words why an implicite Faith in Christ and his word should not suffice as well as an implicite Faith in your Church I haue desired to be resolved by many of your side but never could hath been expressly answered Chap 2. where I haue shewed that Scripture alone neither extensiue containes all necessary Points of Faith nor as I may say intensiue seing euen those Articles which it containes for the true and certaine vnderstāding of them require the authority of the church to say nothing that we cannot haue an implicite Faith in the Scripture vnless it be resolved into our beliefe of the Church for whose authority we receaue Scripture it selfe Secondly That N. 19. you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 15. N. 12. What visible Church was there before Luther disagreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants But transferr it from a Church to particular men as if it were necessary for vs to shew that every man agreed with the Roman Church seing we know many particular men haue fallen into errours but we affirme that before Luther there was no visible true Orthodox Church which disagreed from the Roman and particularly in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs. Thirdly that Pag 23. N 27. as it should be you accuse vs of want of Charity even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to vs saying that for want of Charity to Protesiants we alwayes suspect the worst of them and what greater want of Charity can there be in you than not only to suspect but to pronounce and proclaime in print that we want Charity which is
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
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 But the Answer to this objection hath been given already For some thing may be necessary for some persons at some tyme in some Circumstances which are not necessary vniversally for all Persons Tymes and Circumstances as I specifyed in the Councell of the Apostles in Canonicall writings which written vpon some particular occasion yet require an vniversall beliefe and in generall Councells which you and Potter affirme to oblige as we haue seene aboue Indeed your peremtory wild demand Why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall Meanes to determine all Controversyes be necessary c might well by your leaue beseeme some Jew asking why should or how can Christian Religion be necessary to salvation if for many Ages it was not in Being and yet in the meane tyme men were saved Or why should or how can the believing and obeying the Definition of the Apostles in their Councell or the beliefe of the Gospells and other Canonicall writings be necessary to salvation if for many ages such beliefe was not required and in the meane tyme men were saued Or why should or how can infallibility be necessary to write the Scripture if the writing of Scripture was not necessary but that men were sayed without it You say in the same N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes of 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 we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing Which words seeme not to agree with what you add against Charity Maintayned in his N. 7. 8. that an vniversall infallibility must be granted to that meanes wherby controversyes in Faith are to be determined vnless men haue a mynd to reduce Faith to opinion of which words you say you do not perceyue how from the denyall of any of the grounds which Charity Maintayned layd it would follow that Faith is Opinion or from the granting them that it is not so For my part I do not perceyue how it was possible for you not to perceyue it since you confess that without an vniversall infallibility we could yield vnto such a meanes but wavering and fearfull assent a and what is this but opinion or a meere humane Faith As contrarily if the Meanes or Motiue for which I assent be infallible and I belieue it to be so and assent with an act proportionable to that motiue my assent must needs be certaine and infallible and not a wavering and fearfull assent If this be not so why do you require infallibility in the said meanes Certainly infallibility is not necessary to beget a wavering and fearfull assent 13. You would gladly free yourselfe of that just imputation that you confound Divine Faith with opinion But your tergiversation argues you guilty You bring I know not what parityes betwen Faith and Opinion but decline the maine difference That Divine Faith is absolutely certaine and infallible Opinion not You being conscious of your Antichristian Doctrine That Christian Faith exceeds not probability dissemble the chiefe difference which I haue declared and you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of that griēvous but just accusation that you change Divine Faith into opinion Wheras you say that as opinion so Faith admitts degrees and that as there maybe a strong and weake opinion so there may be a strong and weake Faith and add that Ch Ma if he be in his right mynd will not deny it I answer that still you sticke to your false ground that Christian Faith is not infallible Otherwise you would not make this comparison between the weakness and strength of Opinion and Faith which in its essence excludes all falshood As contrarily Opinion is not free from all feare least it be false 14. The confutation of your N. 8. about the infallibility of Christian Faith is the subject of my first Chapter and therfore I need say no more here except only to aske what you can vnderstand by these words of yours But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection yet may it be enquired whether any certainty of Faith vnder the highest degree may be sufficient to please God and attaine salvation Can the very essence of Faith be weake and imperfect and yet the degrees therof be certaine in the highest degree and exclude that weakness and imperfection which the essence doth not exclude is not the whole essence of Faith in every degree or graduall perfection therof But as I sayd directly contrary to that which your words seeme to sound the very essence of Faith excludes all weaknesse that is all falshood and doubtfulnesse and every graduall entity therof includes such a certainty though one mans Faith within the compasse of the same essence may exceed the Faith of another in graduall perfections as contrarily though Opinion may haue many graduall entityes yet none of them can exclude formidinem oppositi a feare that the contrary may proue true which if any particular degree of intension did exclude it were not Opinion but a certaine knowledge and so could not be a degree of intension vnder the species or essence of Opinion but an assent essentially distinct from all Opinion 15. In your N. 9. I obserue that you do not only grant the possibility of a certainty of adherence in the will beyond the certainty of evidence in the vnderstanding but also a certainty of knowledge in the vnderstanding aboue the strength of probable Motives or Arguments of Credibility For you say they know marke this word know what they did but belieue and are as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which saw it with their eyes which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the word of life If God can do this with his Grace seing Christian Faith requires the Grace of God why do you deny that by it we are no less assured that the Objects of Faith are true than if we had seene them with our eyes c The rest of this number is answered Chap 1. 16. You are pleased N. 10. to delight yourselfe and deceiue others with a wild collection as you stile it fathered on Ch Ma being only a brood of your owne braine The case stands thus Ch Ma N. 8. hath these words Out of the Principles which I haue layd That there must be in Gods Church some meanes for deciding Controversyes in Faith and that it must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propounds as spoken by God it vndeniably followes that of two men dissenting in matters of Faith the
here your saying N. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe â—or as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things vnder his feeâ—e is mâ—st true though yet S. Paul tells vs that when it is sayd he hath put all things vnder him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things vnder him So when we say that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne may say all my substance is in this shipp and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance nor yes to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is sipportâ—d by the foundation and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you yourselves vse to say that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or els made him head of himselfe 5. Answer Are all those Protestants Cavillers who teach that we may know by Scripture it selfe that it is the word of God and consequently that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe Doth not Potter Pag 141. say That Scripture is of Divine Authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron after he had confuted the opinions of others about the private spirit and the Doctrine of Catholikes concerning the Church finally resolve that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God by certaine criteria or markes found in the Scripture it selfe And therfore it cannot be denyed but that when Protestants teach that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture they must either say that this Point of Faith Scripture is the word of God may be learned by Scripture or els contradict themselves as indeed they must and for that cause ought to grant that besides Scripture there is some other Meanes to propose Divine Revelations and Scripture it selfe with the true interpretation therof Your examples may be turned against you by those your Brethren who deny both the private spirit and the Authority of the Church for assuring vs with certainty that Scripture is the Word of God and they will tell you that if a ship must either be within itselfe or no where a marchant shewing a ship of his owne and saying all my substance is in this ship must either grant that the ship is in itselfe or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship and the like they would say of a foundation that if it support the whole house and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe it must support it selfe and then they would informe you that seing not only the contents of Scripture but also Scripture itselfe are objects revealed by God which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit which you and they hold to be a foolery nor an infallible Church which all of you hold to be Papistry it followes that Scripture must be believed for itselfe or els not be believed at all And the same we may answer ad hominem that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church but he must be head of himselfe it could not be sayd that he is head of the whole vnless it be also granted that he is head of himselfe but we deny that fond supposition that he cannot be head of the Church vnless he be head of himselfe as contrarily Protestants teach that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church nor by the private spirit and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe The same they would answer to those words he hath put all things vnder his feete that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him if indeed those first words he hath put all things vnder his feete could not be verifyed vnless he who put all things vnder his feete were put vnder him Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren except by saying that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God aÌ„d therfore there is required no infallibility in â—he Church from which you say we receiue Scripture or els that Scripture is not a materiall object which we belieue or both as indeed you affirme both that Faith is not infallible and that Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith And finally every one who hath care of his soule must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants conclude with Catholikes that for believing with certainty that Scripture is the word of God we must rely on the Church with this condition also that she be believed to be infallible which infallibility is absolutely necessary if once with all Christians we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true 6. To your N. 34. I answer That all those Bookes of Scripture are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such Before which declaration of the Church all they were very secure who differed about some Bookes because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation But for the contrary reason Protestants relying vpon the sole written word cannot be safe in regard that they not knowing what Points in particular be necessary to salvation to make all sure must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes which diverse learned men even of their owne Sect acknowledg to be Canonicall least otherwise they may chance to remaine in ignorance or errour of some matter necessary to salvation 7. The same Answer serves for your N. 36. For it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther and diverse other Bookes of Scripture as Luther speakes of them after the Definition of Gods Church to the contrary Wherof see Charity Ma. N. 9. Pag 45. 8. Your other Sections or numbers till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther whom I know you defend against your Conscience and the Canon of the English Protestant Church which now hath no existence and her 39. Articles being or having been vnder Censure may perhaps be altered I let pass not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words N. 47. directed to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it
an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding to see the Scripture Wherby it still appeares that not our vnderstanding alone but it with some other Helpe not produced by the Scripture must be compared to our corporall Eye The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost and therfore our vnderstanding with that light is the Eye not produced by the Scripture but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture And lastly you who teach that we belieue for the Authority of the Church must say that the eye wherby we see Scripture is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church Which Tradition therfore must be knowne and believed before we belieue Scripture and not be produced by Scripture 12. Wheras you say Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters contradictions but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible you speake wickedly and ignorantly We haue heard Dr. Taylor in his Liberty c § 10. N. 16. confessing that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And it is certaine that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity to any learned Philosopher containess farr greater dissiculty than any that can be objected against Transubstantiation And yourselfe vpon a certaine occasion could say to some Protestants Either deny the Trinity or admitt Transubstantiation and it was answered we will rather admitt this than deny that And with good reason For if we respect humane discourse there are as I sayd more difficult objections against that Mystery than against this And if we regard Revelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence and Transubstantiation than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity And if regard were to be had of Heretikes more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity than of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of naturall Reason taking hold of the present tyme are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith The other part of your Affirmation That jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible is extreme bold seing so many great learned men hold the first and no man the latter being betweene them as great difference as betweene Est Est and Fuit non fuit But I feare you do not vnderstand what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing or jam factum facere which signifyes only that the same thing is and is wheras every body knowes that factum infectum facere is to say That which was was not A manifest Contradiction Yet withall I must add that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church doth necessarily depend on that Question Whether it be impossible jam factum facere But enough of this least others haue occasion to say of me as you say truly of yourselfe in the close of this N. 48. I digress 13. I know not well what to make of your long and distracted discourse N. 49. we do not deny but that Protestants and other Heretikes may assent to some Mystery of Faith by a humane opinion and perswasion but that assent of theirs is not true Divine supernaturall Faith God not giving his particular Grace for believing one Article of Faith to him who denyes another equally proposed as revealed by God wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed Vnlearned Catholikes may exercise a true Act of Faith because indeed their assent comes to rely vpon a firme ground that is Divine Revelation propounded by an infallible meanes Gods Church wheras Heretikes haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith as hath beene shewed in severall occasions 14. For gaining tyme and saving vnnecessary paines I had omitted to take notice of your N. 51.52 vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much that whosoever will reade aÌ„d compare the words of Ch Ma. with your Answer shall find that he speakes clearly and that you do so involue and obscure and alter what he spoke plainly that I know not what to make of your words He tells you that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ as yourself grant and to say as you doe that the Church or Tradition of the Church is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men for ought I can judge is repugnant to Reason and Christianity For what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ which cannot be knowne except by some supernaturall Arguments as Miracles Sanctity Scripture Revelation c. 15. I do not vnderstand these your words N. 52. addressed to C. Mâ— That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canenâ—all and need no proofe of its owne being so you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum constat I pray you where did Ch Ma say that there is any part of Scripture which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide even by this Argument that otherwise we cannot be assured what Booke and parts of Scripture are Canonicall And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious are not Protestants wont to proue that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall is not conforme to other parts of Scripture and therfore cannot be Canonicall Do not yourselfe say N. 27. The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture may be decided negatively out of Scripture by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall And may we not proue affirmatively for example that those Texts of the old Testament which are cited in the New are Canonicall because they are cited for such in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall I beseech you to what purpose or vpon what occasion given do you N. 51. vtter these words As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all sciences Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences Were all one Charity Maintayned said if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first and most know ne in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles he supposes that which is in Question whether there be not some Principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the
consisted of the Apostles who determined not only what others but what themselves were to belieue if they had not believed it already as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell and so the Apostles had determined what the Apostles were to belieue The same may be applyed to Generall Councells who determine even what they themselves are to belieue and vniversally if we do conceiue any congregation to be infallibly assisted by God they may declare what themselves and others are to belieue though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers Yourselfe confess that the Governers of the Church may determine Rites Ceremonies c for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference yea if you vnderstand the matter as you should in determining Rites c they determine what every one is not only to practise but to belieue also as I sayd aboue and so all believers may determine in this sense what they are to belieue But the truth is you erre even in Philosophy not considering that when a thing is determined by a Community endued with sufficient Authority to command and define the obligation falls not vpon the whole collectiuè compared with the whole that is adaequate with it selfe but as the whole respects a particular member or part from which it is truly distinguished as includens ab incluso and the whole a singulis partibns in the manner that a mans soule is distinguished from a man Besides the precept of Faith or Believing is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept but a Divine command obliging All and Every one to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God which therby becomes an Object of Faith And I hope you will not deny but that although it were granted that a man cannot oblige himself nor a community it self by their owne Authority or command yet God may and doth oblige all and every one to belieue whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth by such an infallible Propounder as the Church is which in that sense may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue We may also add that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof who are not the whole Church collectiuè but may command and define for the whole Church Lastly what doth this your answer belong to the Point of which Charity Maintayned spoke That there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority in the Church of Christ than in the Synagogue of the Jewes because the Lawes Rites c were more particularly and as I may say minutely determined in the Old then in the New Law which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine for all the many varietyes and different occasions that may present themselves 48. Your N. 143. is answered in three words that when S. Paul 1. Cor. 16.11 sayd All these thinges chanced to them in figure Every body sees that he meant not of the temporall but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes and so if they had one high Priest who was endued with infallibility much more ought we to belieue that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church And the Reader by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned with your Objection will of himselfe see that you labour to seeke but can find no solide matter against him Neither did he ever say that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians as you would make him speake but expressly that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ for those are his words Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection To be a Patterne expresses perfection as being a Rule modell and an idea of that in respect wherof it is a Patterne 49. You needed not in your N. 144. pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant when in the beginning of his N. 24. he sayd This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus For it was easy to see that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent N. 23. His discourse was that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist respectiuè before any Scripture was written as there he shewes at large and consequently that Tradition and not scripturedid then beget faith which is also clearly confirmed by the place which Ch. Ma. cited N. 24. out of S. Irenaeus whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe and even against yourselfe The words of the Saint Lib 3. Cap 4. are What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what If there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned which declare that Tradition is sufficient and powerfull to produce Faith even with facility as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe though no Scripture had beene written And this he affirmes not by way of conjecture or discourse what God would haue done if there had beene no Scriptures but that de facto there was existent such a powerfull Tradition as to it not one nor some nor few but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke that is without Scripture And in this Chapter N. 159. you say Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing From whence you inferr That a man may be saved though he should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God if he belieue Christian Religiō wholly and entirely and liue according to it If this be true doth it not follow that Scripture alone is not the only nor a necessary Rule of Faith seing by tradition alone men may be saved though they should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God And that by this concession you directly blott out the very title of this Chapter which is Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes 50. Now let vs heare what you can Object against Charity Maintayned in this matter You say N. 144. In saying what if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition And in saying that to this order many Nations yield assent who
belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition doth he S. Irenaeus not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing els but the very same that is written Nothing but to belieâ—e in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge 51. Answer First this your Answer though it were never so true leaves Charity Maintayned in possession of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus against the Title of your Chapter Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes to witt that Tradition and therfore not only Scripture is such a Rule For dato non concesso that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible and guide vs by Tradition as by Gods vnwritten Word You teach here N. 126. That all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells And yet you say That they which had â—ll the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes and be testifyed by diverse witnesses So say I it had not beene superfluous but very profitable that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture and by the infallible Tradition of the Church which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written For as Scripture was not superfluous though it found another infallible Rule before it which also even according to Protestants remained for some tyme with it namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited so Tradition neither was nor is superfluous though there be another infallible Rule Scripture with it 52. Secondly When you say That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of is nothing els but the very same what is written nothing but to belieue in Christ to which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it you should add and vnderstand it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge I must answer as you N. 142. speake to Charity Maintayned I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what you meane by believing Only in generall that he is the Messias and that without believing him none can be saved Or else do you vnderstand by believing in Christ all that hath beene taught by him If you meane the first only you say nothing to the purpose because other Articles are necessarily to be believed beside that of Christs being the Messias If you meane the second that is all Points taught by our Saviour and necessary to be believed as you N. 159. say S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias as even there you declare that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion wholly and entirely that is the matter of the Gospell you know we deny that for all such truths Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide and to take the contrary without proofe is to begg the question Nay even for that of believing in Christ I wonder you would say that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide in the Principles and proceedings of Protestants seing you know that He knowes and the whole world knowes how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ some believing him to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father Others denying it Some saying he satisfyed for our sins others denying it as you know the Socinians doe So that take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ will terminate in the meere Name of Christ and the Title of Saviour with endless contentions about the Thing signifyed by that Name and Title Put then all your Assertions togeather the strength of them will end in this contradiction that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word of God yea though he doubt or reject it being proposed by other Parts of the Church as you expressly say in the same N. 159. 53. But you say S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say if God had not given vs the light of the Sun we must haue made vse of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must haue felt out our way If we had no leggs we must haue vsed crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we haue the Sun we need no candles While we haue our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying if we had had no Scripture we must haue followed Tradition and they that haue none do well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that haue Scripture and belicue it Tradition is vnnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition 54. Answer You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus and moue others to vndestand them as you please if you will first suppose your owne doctrine to be true that is if to begg the question may passe for a good Rule to interpret Authors If I say you suppose or take as granted that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation you may compare it to the Sun to Eyes to leggs and the Church to Candles to feeling out our way to crutches yea if she might erre to the Synagogue of Satan and lastly to Nothing because indeed every errour in Faith destroyes Faith and Church But if you conceaue as you ought that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs that by Her Eyes or Testimony we belieue Scripture to be the word of God as yourselfe grant that by Her subsistence as I may say it hath beene conserved and subsists you will be forced to invert your similitudes and interpretation of S. Irenaeus and say do not his words import that if candles should faile the Sun will last and as the Prophet David saith Psalm 18. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum that is in manifestatione Ecclesiam saith S. Austine If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way as the disagreements of Protestants shew they cannot we may see by the eyes of the Church by which we did first see Scripture itselfe and then do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import the direct contrary of that which you inferr That to them who haue Tradition as all they must haue who belieue Scripture
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
say The Reason and connexion of this consequence I feare neither I nor you doe well vnderstand But you feare where there is no cause of feare For is it not a cleare consequence that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamentall points and I haue recourse to her about any matter not knowing it to be Fundamentall I cannot be sure but that she may erre therin We haue hard yourselfe saying of meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded and to vse your owne words who would not laugh at him who should argue thus the Church is infallible in some things the Church saith this is true Therfore it is true Or thus the Church is infallible only in fundamentall Points The Church saieth this particular is true which I know not whether or not it be Fundamentall therfore the Church is infallible in this The conclusion should be Therfore I cannot know that the Church is infallible in this You say N. 37. that the Scripture must be vniversally true and not only in fundamentalls because otherwise it could not be a sufficient warrant to belieue this thing that these only points are Fundamentall which shewes your opinion to be that it would litle availe vs to know that Scripture is infallible in fundamentalls only vnless we could know what Points in particular are fundamentall and therfore you impugne yourself while you find fault with Ch Ma for saying that if the Church be infallible only in fundamentalls we cannot belieue her with certainty vnless we know that such and such things are Fundamentall The residue of this Number 39. you spend in distinguishing between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls of which I haue alreadie spoken at larg 51. In your N. 40. you cite these words as out of Char. Maintayn They that knowe what Points are Fundamentall otherwise then by the Churches Authority learne not of the Church Char. Maint speakes more distinctly and sayeth If before they address themselves to the Church they must know what points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but wil be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church Which he proves there at large out of S. Austine and S. Chryiostome And is not all this very cleare For how can I be saied to learne of the Church that which I must know before she can teach me that is what Points be Fundamentall Yes say you they may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and consequently learne even of the Church even of your Church that all is not Fundamentall nay all is not true which she teaches vs to be 52. Answer First can we indeed learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so How then do you say it is impossible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points seing there is meanes to know that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so Secondly You grant what Charity Maintayned saied That I cannot learne of the Church that which I must know before she teaches me while you tell vs that men learne of the Church one thing that Scripture is the Word of God and an other from Scripture namely what Points be Fundamentall and so we are so far from learning of the Church that fuch points are Fundamentall that we are as fit to teach her as she to teach vs which Points in particular be Fundamentall which we learne from Scripture not from her just as you teach that not from the Church but from Scripture we learne all particular Points of Faith with certainty though we receiue the Scripture from the Church Thirdly If it be a Fundamentall truth that Scripture is the Word of God I must know it to be such before I can be assured that the Church cannot erre therin and so I cannot learne it of the Church and much less can I learne it of the Church with certainty if it be not a Fundamentall Point in which you hold the Church may erre and Pag 116. N. 159. you say it is not a Fundamentall point Fourthly Whereas you say That one may learne from the Church that Scripture is the Word of God and from the Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so I answer if we belieue Scripture to be the word of God vpon the sole Authority of the Church it is impossible that I can proue out of Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so For by this meanes Scripture would be destructiue of it self if we belieue it for an Authority which it self saieth may affirme a falshood and so we cannot belieue it even in this particular that Scripture is the word of God Yourself say heere N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belicue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Therfore you either do vnreasonably in believing the Scripture vpon the sole warrant of the Church or vnreasonably in not believing her in all her proposalls and Luther was and all Protestants are vnreasonable in saying that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so You say N. 40. Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learne of a Church how to confute the errours of that Church which taught him As well as of my Master in Physick or Mathematicks I may learne those rules ād Principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous Conclusions But if the ground which I haue laied and corfirmed out of your owne words be considered this your instance will proue against yourself For if I belieue those Rules or Principles because I belieue my Master cannot erre and not for the evidence of them in themselves I do vnreasonably in not believing whatsoever he proposes Otherwise I may feare he erred even in those Rules if once I sinde him to erre in any other thing Now we receiue with certainty Scripture for the sole Authority of the Church and therfore we do vnreasonably if we belieue her not in all her proposalls 53. Your N. 41.42 haue bene answered hertofore In your N. 43. you speake to Ch Ma. in this manner In the next place you tell vs out of S. Austine That that which has bene alwayes kept is most rightly esteemed to come from the Apostles Very right and what then Therefore the Church cannot erre indefining
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
Church and your labour and paines taken therin are lost in order to any other effect except contrary to your desires to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned which was That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone To which purpose He setts downe what sense Catholiques giue them and the different interpretation of Protestants from Catholikes and from one and other While therfore you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants and of Dr. Potter in particular what doe you els but make good the saied Affirmation and intention and proofe of Cha Ma that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self And you could not but see that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text to proue the Churches infallibility but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone by those examples which he alledges and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques and in which you differ from both So that even by your disagreeing from Catholiques in the meaning of those places you in fact and Deeds proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed and the more you object against Charity Maintayned the more you prejudice yourself and make good these his words If words cannot perswade you that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yeald your assent to Deeds Which thing considered I haue no obligation at all to examine your Objections against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned but only to proue by an Argument drawen from Experience and Deeds or matter of fact that there must be some Living Guide to interpret Scripture and you were wise enough not to take notice of this Argument which was evident by experience but dissemble the matter and divert the Reader with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants than Catholiks and therefore your interpretations proue nothing because they proue too much even in the common grounds and tenets of Protestants Nevertheless by way of supererogation I will examine all that you can object 72. N. 69. you bring certaine objections in a different letter as if they were made eypressly by Ch Ma and yet I finde them not in him whatsoever they be in themselves Then N. 70. you say The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her 73. Answer you know we deny this and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall And what cā be more incōsistēt with being of a true Church than errour against Faith which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue of the Church or congregation of Faithfull people Yourself teach that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation is damnable of itself and what can set the gates of Hell more open than damnable sinnes Neither can you flie to ignorance whereof you cā haue no certainty especially for the whole vniversall Church and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her whereof we could not be certaine if the Church may erre damnably and be excused only by ignorance which as I saied is an vncertaine hidden thing Beside The Church being appointed by our Saviour Christ to be the teacher of all Christians it is essentially necessary that she cannot erre even by ignorance but must be believed to be infallible in all matters belonging to Faith seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall as you confess in this Chapt. N. 36. that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians you teach Pag. 119. N. 164. in these words Though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous nay gurtfull nay in themselves damnable And in this Chapter N. 78. you say That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths you know we grant and must grant for it is the Essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defectiue in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice Out of these sayings of yours this argument offers it self The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths And consequently we are to belieue her in such points But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points vnless we belieue her to be infallible in all that she proposes as matter of Faith This also is our Doctrine Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in all points So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church you contradict both truth and your owne Assertions 74. And heere I must put you in minde of your saying that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls and yet we haue heard you say that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation and what is to be an infallible Teacher or Proposer but to be an infallible Guide And then further seing you say P. 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed we must necessarily infer that de facto the Church which is an infallible Teacher and Guide is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed 75. This is not all that I am to deduce from your saied Assertions You say in this same Page and Number No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certaine Denomination To which Proposition I subsume But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven Therfore you must grant that there is some infallible Church of one denomination which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this
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
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
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
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
a necessity of some body to deliver it Neither can I discover how this argument is not against yourselfe who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith and that the article which doth concerne the Church is none of those necessary points from whence it follow that the perfection of the Creed that is the beliefe of all necessary articles excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church For it implyes contradiction that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed and yet some other points should be necessary or that a point not necessary should be necessary Neither is this in your grounds to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed but only to exclude a necessity of believing that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church which you say N. 34. is not a fundamentall article and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke You add much lesse can I discover any shew of reason why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnder stand you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary therfor their is no need to belieue in God But who makes any such generall or causall inference Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary rather we must say the contrary Because it containes divers necessary points therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence the Creed containes all necessary articles togeather with some not necessary Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God with that of the Church since the one is the most necessary article of all others and the other in your opinion is not necessary The rest of your discourse in this Number serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary all other Creeds and Catechismes are superfluous but expresly called it a poore consequence and yet that it was as good as Potters which must be to this effect It is enough vpon the Doctours supposition not in truth or it is only necessary to belieue the article of the Church Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed 66. In your N. 81. you are pleased to spend words in vaine D. Potter says As well nay better they might haue given vs no article but that and sent vs to the Church for all the rest Ch. Ma. having first proved this inference to be of no force by way of superrogation grants the thing inferred not absolutely but thus farr which words you leaue out and yet they overthrow all that you say here that de facto our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church by her to be taught and by her alone because she was before the Creed and Scriptures and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed holy Scripture vnwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant as might haue been apparent if you had not omitted his first words Thus farr and not farther nor so farr as you would needs make him to haue pretended 67. Your N. 82.83 haue been answered already For if Dr. Potter meant that the article of the Church might be sufficient as containing all things necessary to be believed and that therfor we needed not the Creed Ch. Ma. sayth truly it is no good argument The Creed containes not all things necessary and that article of the Church is in rigour sufficient Therfor the Creed is not profitable or if the Doctour meant that the article of the Church were enough because the Church afterward would teach all things by Creeds or Catechismes c. that were but to leaue the Creed and afterward to come to it and indeed to tell vs that the Church must doe that which had beene done already and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed in all necessary points of beliefe you doe indeed overthrow it while you speake to Ch. Ma. in this manner Supposing the Apostles had written â—hese Scriptures as they haue written wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that doctrine which they did preach and done all other things as they haue done besides the compossng their simbol I say if your doctrine weretrue they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never coÌ„posed their simbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians and those that are not so but in steed therof had delivered this one proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good inteÌ„ts aÌ„d purposes the RomaÌ„ Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith who sees not that according to this discourse of yours the Apostles assuring vs that the scripture is infallible aÌ„d evideÌ„t in all necessary points de facto haue done as much service to the Church as you say they would haue done by that article I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible For this evidence of Scripture being supposed you teach that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church when the way is plaine of it selfe And if notwithstanding this your doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture alone the Creed is not vnprofitable and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church by giving vs both the Creed and Scripture So I say that one article of the Church togeather with the Creed had been more profitable and of greater service then that Article alone yea the Church as I sayd must haue delivered some Creed and it was a great service to vs that the Apostles had done it to her hand If you deny this you must deny the Creed and Scripture to be de facto more profitable then the Scripture alone and so the Creed shall be of no profit For I suppose if either the Creed or Scripture be not profitable you will say it is the Creed rather then the Scripture If you say the articles of the Creed being clearly but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture as Potter speakes haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed which therfor is of great vse I reply that by this answer you teach vs to confute your argumeÌ„t by saying that as Scripture is too large for a Creed or an abridgment so
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
be in errour All that Ch. Ma. sayes is That if you erre in judging you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours you must rectify your conscience by judging the errours not to be fundamentall or damnable and therfor not excluding salvation Is this good dealing in you And why doe you say N. 106. A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judge they haue no errours because we judge they haue none damnable Seing Ch Ma sayd most expresly that you doe the favour to other Protestants whome you cannot deny to be in some errours not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Once againe I must aske whether this be conscionable dealing 46. You are too resolute in this N. 106. to impugne the saying of Ch Ma That according to the Doctrine of all Divines ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience And I feare you doe not well vnderstand this true Doctrine when you say These are but divers words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue but tending to practise nor such a dictamen wholy practicall but grounded vpon speculation For you should say the contrary that a perswasion purely speculatiue is so far from tending to practice that oftentimes it is joyned with this judgment I cannot frame my practice according to this speculation and consequently my practice can not be grounded vpon such a speculation as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate particularly in the matter and forme of Sacraments But this is not a place to handle this matter at large it being sufficient to haue sayd that a speculation taken alone and abstracting from all other considerations of all sides oftentimes would proue pernicious if it were applyed to practice You falsify Ch Ma as if he did affirme that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errours For Ch Ma sayth not that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation c. And had not also a practicall dictamen c. but his words are Although they had in speculation conceaved the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgment they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not suhstantiall to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You see Ch Ma declares not what dictamen Protestants had but what they might and ought to haue had which are as different things as to say one is an honest man and might and ought to be such an one Ch Ma sayes not that Dr. Potter teaches in express words that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church for an vnnecessary light but that it followes vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion for poinrs not necessary to salvation 47. In your N. 107. your example that Euclide was not infallible yet was he certaine enough that twice two are foure is not to the purpos because such truths are evident by the light of nature as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree so irreconciliably as the world sees you doe 48. Ch Ma sayth N. 41. Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast of his obedience or publickly oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publick breach especially if with their vncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy To this you answer by abbreviating the words of Ch Ma thus Your Church was in peaceable possession you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages and then you add Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of Possessours if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession But by what commission or warrant doe you say to Ch Ma you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it as if his words must needs be so restrained Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons she was in possession of the good Name and Estimation of being a true Church for which she is commended by S. Paul The Pope was in possession of power and jurisdiction over all Christians of making lawes Accepting appeales gathering Councells c. And both the Pope and Church were in possession of the Professors of her Doctrine that is Christians were their subjects who could not be seduced by fraude Schisme Heresy or violence without offence to God and man as you will not deny all lawfull Communities to haue Right that their subjects should not withdraw and divide themselves from such a mysticall Body Neither is it pertinent whether in this place we take possession as it is defined Detentio rei corporalis corporis animâ—jurisque adminiculo it being sufficient for our present purpose that it be that which is called quasi possessio the having any thing as we are sayd to haue hands feete life c. You say the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession Answer It is strange that no man hath reason to be offended if men quit the possession or forsake the true Doctrine the grace of God or vertue or honesty because he is supposed to possesse them or for a man to depriue himselfe of some member of his body or even of life it selfe Your last words That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages of the party gouverned was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence are most injurious to Truth to Gods Church and to God himselfe as if our Saviours promise of a stable Church should be verified only by fraude and violence seing as I haue often sayd ther was no visible Church vpon earth except the Roman and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach as Ch Ma shewes here Pag 173. and you doe not deny Pag 274. N. 56. where I obserue by the way that you say I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church wheras Ch
qualifyed Protestant who this very yeare 1651. hath putin print that Justin confesses that some good and honest Christians did not acknowledg that Doctrine of the Millenaries which the Doctor Pag 88. shewes very well not to be repugnant to an other saying of S. Justin to which this last Author sayes it is repugnant Now I beseech you consider how you can impugne Gods Church by a pretended tradition which not only Catholiques but even learned Protestants out of S. Justines words denie to haue bene Catholique or vniversall in his time and which this Doctor avouches not to be asserted as vniverfall by the Lord Faulkland himself whereby this Objection so often repeeted in your Booke comes to just nothing and I haue wondered that so worme-eaten and obsolete a thing as this is should be revived and vrged as a Demonstration against the Traditions of the Church But it is Gods Goodness to confound the enemyes of his Church by their owne wisdome and confute them by their owne arguments and is it not a great proofe for the infallibility of the Church that these her adversaries after all labour and study can alledg only such a toy as this to proue the fallibility of the Church for so many Ages wherein she could not but haue fallen into many mote and greater errours if she had bene subject to accept and deliver fals or apocryphall Traditions If you haue a mind to speak to the purpose you must produce some cleare and vndoubted Tradition or some Definition of a Pope or Councell for this of the Chiliasts or any other errour But this is as impossible for you to doe as that God can break his Promise that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her and that he will be with her to the worlds end You say If this Tradition of a thousand yeares was not conserved and observed in the Church of Rome had Irenaeus known so much he must haue retracted this commendation of that Church Not so by your leaue but as a true child of Gods Church if he had bene perswaded his opinyon to be against her Tradition he would haue retracted his opinyon and not his commendation of the Church vpon which he builded his Doctrine against those Heretiques whom he impugned otherwise his argument takē from her Tradition had bene of no force but petitio principij proving their Heresies to be false because the Church of Rome which in those particulars did not erre taught the particular opinyons of those men to be false Especially since by the confession of S. Justin Many Christians of pure and pious judgment held the contrary 33. Having considered with attention all the rest that you haue in this N. 30. I find nothing which hath not bene answered either by mee or by Ch Ma Part 2. Chap 2. N. 32. for as much as belongs to Him and as for your vaine affected florish against the most learned Cardinall Perron it is both impertinent to my purpose and really so slight that I could not haue imagined you would in modesty haue premised these fond words The words of the Cardinall I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants In a word I must say That you do not distinguish betwene matter of Faith and of Fact nor consider that although error against Faith defended with obstinacie be per se loquendo a sufficient cause of excommunication yet it may be also necessary in prudence for some circumstances to abstaine from inflicting such a censure and in the case of Pope Uictor the success shewed that even for matter of fact he was in the right For after his death the Councells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus which Protestants receiue as Lawfull Generall Councels excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Provinces which Uictor had excommunicated I haue no tyme to take notice of your seditious speach Pag 35. letter f that inferiors may excommunicate superiors if they did any thing which deserved it By which Doctrine you or any other Socinian might haue excommunicated thē who excommunicated all such as held the 39. Articles to containe any errour as is knowne you believed them to containe divers 33. To your N. 31.32.33.34.35 I answer that in the Authorityes alledged out of the Fathers by Ch. Ma. you will still find a particular preheminence of the Roman Church and you could not haue done vs a greater favour than to touch the matter of Appeales to Rome from the whole world if it had bene handled by Ch. Ma. as it was not and therefore I must refer the Reader to Catholique Writers and in particular to the learned Cardinalls Bellarmine and Perron from whom he may receyue full satisfaction Only to what you say N. 31. that S. Austine Lib. 1. retractat Chap. 26. retracts what he had saied that the Church was builded vpon Peter I must answer that Chap. 26. Retract there is no such matter as you mention and what he hath Chap. 21. is so answered by Bell. De Rom. Pont. Lib. 1. Chap. 10. as your objection will be found to make rather for than against vs. In your N. 32. you haue no reason to find fault with Ch. Ma. for translating Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the principality of the sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish seing it is cleare that S. Austine in that place attributes a particular priviledg to the Sea of Rome as the Chaire of Peter and a Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome as he speakes In psalm Con. partem Donati Whereby it appeares that he makes but one chiefe Apostolique Sea and it seemes this Translation of Ch. Ma. was so good that yourself could not perceiue or tax it till an excess of desire to trifle made you at length put it in your margent it not occurring tyme enough to find a place in the Text. Maximianus of whom you speak N. 36. is cited by Onuphrius Lib de primatu Petri parte prima and by Adamus Tannerus a knowen learned Divine Tom. 3. Disp 1. de Fide Quest 5. Dub. 3. Epistolâ ad Orientales in these words Omnes fines terrae quae Dominum sincerè receperunt vbique terrarum Catholici veram fidem profitentes in potestatem Romanorum Pontificum tanquam in solem respiciunt c Hunc enim Petrum de caeteris mortalibus ex toto terrarum orbe conditor orbis elegit cui Cathedram magisterij principaliter possidendam perpetuo privilegij jure concessit vt quis quis Divinum aliquid aut profundum nosse desiderat ad hujus praeceptionis oraculum doctrinam que recurrat You say Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I find no such thing in the Councells Neither can I belieue that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelue hundred yeares a goe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome But if that be true which you often inculcate that deeds are better witnesses
Nonne Deo subjecta erit anima mea which entire submission and subjection is evidently more necessary in Faith than in Charity against which some sinnes may be veniall whereas every errour against any truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God is a deadly sinne nor can be excused ob parvitatem materiae 50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawen from it the Doctrine of S. Thomas That every errour against Faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants haue no Faith no certainty and that you haue all Faith must together with it fall to the ground Which words are either non-sense or evidently false For who ever denied not your self excepted that every errour against Faith involves an opposition against Gods testimony which is the very essence of errour against Faith that is of Heresy 51. Your N. 50.51.52 haue bene answered heretofore and are answered by this one consideration That your Faith is not raised aboue the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility which being evident your kind of Faith must be evident but our Catholique Faith is an assent aboue the saied motives and is certaine though not evident as I haue declared els where and by this meanes your imitation of the Argument of Ch Ma to proue that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity falls to the ground because we belieue with a greater certainty than is derived from the sole motives of credibility so that your Faith must haue evidence but cannot haue certainty The Faith of Protestants who pretended to be assured what Bookes be Canonicall by the private spirit must be certaine and evident and consequently not obscure and therefor Calvin Lib Institut Cap 7. Sect 2. saieth that by the spirit men may discerne true Scripture as we discerne lucem à tenebris album à nigro suaue ab amaro light from darkness white from black sweete from sower And so the Faith of Catholiques only remaines both certaine and obscure as Christian Faith ought to be 52. Your N. 53.54.55 haue bene either answered already or els containe meere sayings without any proofe That the Jewes before our Saviours tyme conserved the Scripture is no wonder since at that tyme they were the true Church and afterward it was not in their power to corrupt it at their pleasure in regard the Apostles and other converted to Christian Religion could manifestly haue convinced them as shameless falsaries But what hath this to doe with that Church which was the vniversall Church of Christ before Luther and if it be fallible and so could haue bene permitted to corrupt Scripture you can at this tyme haue no certainty of the Bible That Luther opposed the Roman Church appeares by what I sayd heretofore and is demonstrated by Ch Ma Part 1. Chap 5. N. 29. and yourself N. 73. describe the man in such manner as makes the matter credible of it self 53. You tell vs N. 56. that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Of this we haue saied enough heretofore Now I will only put you in minde First that this cannot agree with your Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith nor which men are obliged to belieue For if it only be the Religion and Faith of Protestants and yet be not a point or object of Faith which you are bound to belieue it followes that Protestants haue no Religion or Point of Faith at all Secondly We haue heard you say Pag 287. N. 82. that some Protestants tooke for the model or Idaea of their Reformation not Scripture only but also the Decrees of Councells and the Writings of the Fathers of the first fiue Ages Thirdly you say Whatsoever els they Protestants belieue besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their owne grounds belieue it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption It is strang that the Approbators of your Book and other Protestants did not see a thing verie evident That in these words you declare Protestant pretended Bishops and the Church of England to haue bene guilty of most high and most Schismaticall presumption for requiring the belief of the 39. Articles some of which you belieue neither to be contained in Scripture nor to be the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it but to be fals and repugnant to it So that we haue reason more and more to be even amazed that such a Book could at such a tyme be published 54. Your N. 57 and the rest till your N. 72. inclusiuè haue bene answered in different occasions respectiuè Vnfortunate man Who will not compassionate your disorder of minde and pen when N. 66. you are not ashamed to say of Catholiques It is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false stories by obtruding on the world supposititious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by perfecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent If Luther found the Roman Church and such as were vnited with her that is all Orthodox Christian Churches in such a state as you describe what a scandall must it needs haue bene to Jewes Turks Pagans and all the enemies of Christian Religion 55. Whosoever reads your N 73. will find that you abandon Luther and that you grant very much in favour of the Roman Church as will appeare by reading Ch Ma heere N. 32. and I obserue that you confess with Luther that in the Papacy are many good things that haue come from them to vs and then why do you alwaies deny that you receiue Scripture from vs which is one of those many good things that haue come from vs to you as Luther expressly confesses 56. In your N. 74. you involue and make things seeme obscure which are very cleare You cite Ch. Ma. as if he saied in generall certainty and prudence are certaine grounds of supernaturality which is evidently fals it being manifest that some naturall knowledg may be certaine and prudent You say also that Ch Ma makes perswasion and opinion all one And why because he saieth the Faith of Protestants is but an human perswasion or opinion as if you should haue saied when you say this or that we make this and that all one or in saying such a one studied in Oxford or Cambridg we make Oxford or Cambridg all one The truth is Ch. Ma. neither intended to make them all one or different it being sufficient for his purpose that the Faith of Protestants was not a certaine divine assent call it otherwise what you please You ask how we can assure you that our Faith is not our
private persons and as representing the Church musâ— be differently vnderstood c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq Their authority must be believed before we can belieue what they spake or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. passim Apostles for the essentiall are and alwayes must be in the Church c. 12. n. 99. p. 782. All the Apostles commanded to preach none to write c. 2. n. 25. p. 131. The Apostles being the salt of the earth atheistically explicated by I hil c. 12. n. 91. p. 777. Apprehension taken for the first operation of the vnderstanding agrees not to Faith which is an assent or judgment taken in generall as knowledge often is it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth c. 15. n. 4. p. 886 887. How argumeÌ„ts of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty and in what sense they are the word aÌ„d voyce of God c. 1. n. 79.80 p. 95.96 Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation VVhat conditions it must haue to obtaine absolution c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. seq S. Austin rejected and alleadged by I hil for the selfe same poynt and shewed to be adversary to I hil c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq His advise for the vnderstanding of Scripture n. 201. p. 269. his sense of Tradition and of the practice of the Church n. 209. p. 274. c. 11. n. 26. p. 667. and seq VVhy he is an eyesoare to the Socinians c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against I hil his forgery c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. and seq c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. alibi saepius B. Baptisme acknowledged by Protestants neâ—essary and as required by Scripture and Antiquity c. 4. n. 60. p. 389. and seq It is to be given to children by the authority and practice of the Church ibidem p. 389. and seq The difference and absurdityes amongst Protestants concerning Baptisme c. 2. n. 39. p. 146. seq It is validly administred by Iewe or Gentill if they intend to doe what Christians doe c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptisme in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sinnes past present and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187. Beatificall vision if Faith be naturall and only probable is also naturall and may be a meere fiction c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119. To belieue only that Iesus is the sonne of God is acknowledged even by heretiques insufficient for salvation c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. VVho believes not one poynt sufficiently propounded can haue no supernaturall Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq This proved by Heretiques and Catholiques ibidem Not to belieue any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortall sinne n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker wheÌ„ I only asseÌ„t for the reason he gives or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. alibi Bellarmine viudicated from I hil his cavills c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq VVhat Byshop or Episcopus signifyes cannot evidently be knowne by Scripture alone c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Byshops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. seq Doctor Andreweâ— his contradictioÌ„ in this poynt ibidem Bishops haue no succession in England ibidem Bookes published to forwarne I hil to cleare himselfe of his vnchristiaÌ„ doctrines which he would never be induced to doe pr. n. 4. p. 2. C Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly sayd that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675. Canon of Scripture cleered from Chill his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. it should be 21. p. 663. seq The Canonicalness of the bookes of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. falsly put 953 passim alibi every Canonicall writer wrote all that was necessary for the end inspired him by the holy Ghost not all that was necessary for salvation or for the Church to belieue c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 seq ac alibi Causabons miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444 Catholiques by the confession of Protestants may be saved c. 2 n. 83 p. 185 c. 7 n. 145 p. 563 seq ac alibi No visible Church but the Catholique Romane out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. â—1 p. 522 Reasons why the Catholique Church is not to be forsaken n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could erre her errours were rather to be professed then her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 deinceps Catholiques judge charitably that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation aÌ„d PiotestaÌ„ts if they hold their Religion true should judge the like of Catholiques c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholiques guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture nor feare corruptions c. 11 n. 16 p. 659 The Catholique Church an easy way to find Christs doctrine c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible or all Christianity a fiction c. 4 n. 1 p. 352 Not Catholiques but LutheraÌ„s exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholiques freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395 Catholiques prooue their Faith without a circle Toto c. 5 but Sectaryes cannot Ibid And particularly n. 14 15 p. 437 438 Also c. 2 n. 55 p. 158 Catholiques falsly charged by Chill that they hold Faith to haue no degrees of perfection c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69 Catholique writers falsly cited by Potter as holding that Catholiques and Protestants doe not differ in the essence of Religion c. 7 n. 148 p. 567 Catholiques though falsly suposed to err their errour must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 seq Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler then themselves as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94 Certainty in the vnderâ—â—anding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 seq Ceremonies vide Rites Charity Maintayned alledged and impugned by I hil either with falsification or ommitting his arguments or with some other fraud is often shewed through this whole Booke His Booke is not answeared by I hil but new heresies broached and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity Pr n. 3 p. 1. 2 Charity highly broaken by Protestants in judginge Catholiques vncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the morall obligation of loving imposed by God c. 16 n. 6 p. 935 936 Chillingworths Tenets and consequences He holds that Faith is only a probable rationall assent I. n. 16 p. 11 seq and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous vncharitable erroneous doctrine of dangerous and pernicious consequence c. 1 n. 1 p. 37 And that it excludes all progress in charity n. 71 p. 86 That Faith may stand with Heresie I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace
48 p. 880. The commandements may be kept with the grace of God but not without it J. n. 26. p. 20. 2. No communion in Divine service can be lawfull with those of a different Faith c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 VVho leaves to communicate in what all agree leaves the communion of all And in what all otherwise devided doe agree must be true n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members and consistent with all sorts of Heretiques n. 67 p. 501 sequen In what sense a Community can oblige it selfe c. 11. n. 47 p. 680 Private Confession averred by Protestants to be necessary and that otherwise Christ had given the power of the eyes in vaine c. 2 n. 17 p. 128 It is a Divine precept c. 16 n. 17 p. 943 Consequences probably only deduced out of points of Faith are not points of Faith c 10 n. 21 p. 646 Contradictoryes not vnderstood to be such may be be beleeved c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes Chill Doctâ—ine is discussed disproved and the bad consequences of it shewed c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. sequentibus The Councell of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholique Religion J. n. 10. p. 7. Generall councells if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning Generall Councells and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholiques c. 7. n 40. p. 481. sequen Also from the Doctrine of I hil and Potter concerning the same n. 160. P. 579 sequen aÌ„d n 48 p. 48â— Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be receaved by vniversall tradition independent of Scripture and that the principles of Faith may be knowne by it independent also of Scripture and yet teaches that only Scripture is receaved by vniversall Tradition and that it is necessary to know the principles of Faith c. 13. n. 5. p. 791. Proved that it cannot be a sufficient Rule of Faith seeinge Potter graunts it needs a new declaration for emergent heresies n. 6. p. 792. D Doctrine may be taught effectually and yet resistibly c. 12. n. 79. p. 766. The Donatists had a Bishop at Rome to seeme true Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome c. 15 n. 11. p. 894 Their hatted to Catholiques imitated by Protestants n. 12. p. 895. They were justly sayd to be confind to Africa having no where else any considerable number n. 36. it should haue been 35. p. 916. which is put 816. They had no Divine Faith c. 16. n. 19. p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptization Ibid A doubt properly taken destroyes probability c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected vpon and embraced it is not vnvoluntary n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt Ibid E Errours in themselves not damnable cannot be damnable to be held c. 14. n. 44. p. 877. 878. The Evangelists did not themselves put the Titles of their Gospells c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists alwayes in the Church c. 12. n. 100. p. 783. Eucharist altered in matter and forme by heretiques c. 2. n. 40. p. 147. 148. Never held necessary by the Church to be given to Infants n. 207. p. 273. If in the Eucharist Christ be present Protestants expose theÌ„selves more to sinne then Catholiques if he be not present c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395. Evidence of things contained in Scripture diversly vnderstood e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. seq In what sense Catholiques may affirme that all things necessary for the church are evidently contayned in Scripture n. 9. p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancye c. 7. n. 56. p. 491. Of Evils the lesser may and must be to llerated for avoiding greater c. 12. n. 57. p. 751. And n. 59. p. 753. Uide Perplexity Excommunicaton doth not first separate a Schismatique from the church but presupposes his owne voluntary separation which also may remaine a though the excommunication were taken of c. 7. n. 64. p. 499. deinceps Chilling must separate from the church of England which exeommunicates whosoever affirmes that the 39. Articles containe superstâ—â—â—oÌ„ or errour n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schisme n. 64. p. 499. and n 104. p. 529. F Faith of Christians proved infallible c. 1. per totum VVithout a circle c. 5. per tonum Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first stepp to all merit c. 1. n. 95. p. 103 The infallibility of it is taught by the light of reason and instinct of nature as that there is a God n. 2. 3. 4. p. 38. 39. Acknowledged by Protestants n. 5. p. 39. sequent It is proved by Scripture by Fathers by reason n. 9. p. 30. sequen It is required for acts of supernaturall vertues and consequently it selfe is supernaturall n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Diuine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 it is put 14 p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible but divisible in intension c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq It is an intellectuall vertue repugnant to errour n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth and corrects reason c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with naturall science an act of Faith is most certaine but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in graduall perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq Supernaturall Faith may be without Charity but cannot overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 seq The infallibility of Faith is only requisit for the generall groundsâ— for the particular applicatioÌ„ or matter of fact a morall certainty suffices c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 seq and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the eâ—ercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359 Heretiques opposit doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and I hil directly opposit about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of I hil and the sequels of it in his owne grounds paraleld with the Catholique and convinced to be most preiudiciall to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90 Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to Iewes Turks and Painims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Athisme Ib and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib I hil would seeme to admitt of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to shew that fallible Faith is sufficieÌ„t for salvation are examined and convinced to proue the contrary A nu 102 p. 109 ad finem capit Fallible Faith is alwayes ready to destroy it selfe n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of I hil so often changes Ibid He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing caÌ„ be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He