Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs that it is more likely to ensnare them into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of Faith which is apt as experience shews to misguide men into this pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed proposed by me I believe the Roman Church to be Infallible if your doctrin be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrin be true would without controversie be better than the latter 83. Whereas you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholick Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows that the Apostles if your doctrin be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have if instead thereof they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever Infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion for then the Church not having learnt it of them could not have taught it us This therefore I do not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrin which they did preach and done all other things as they have done besides the composing their Symbol I say if your doctrin were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ if they had never composed their Symbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple belief and no distinctive mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so but instead thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever Infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of Faith 84. Whereas you say If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether soever they lead me Now I say they have led me into this perswasion because they have given me great reason to believe it and none to the contrary The reason they have given me to believe it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselves in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might have a form by which for matter of Faith they might profess themselves Catholicks So Putean out of Thomas Aquinas That the faithful might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitly So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinal Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectual unless it contain at least all points of simple belief which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitly known by all men So that if it be a fault in me to believe this it must be my fault to believe the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot do if I believe not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an Error which I believe it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspicion That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I have which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths be granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. The ANSWER to the Fifth CHAPTER Shewing that the separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism 1. AD § 1.2 3 4 5 6 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue and deserve a censure As 2. First That Schism could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unless there always had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falsehood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schism might now be and be a Division from the present Visible Church As though in France there never had been until now a lawful Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Sovereign Authority 3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithful as it is plain you do free from all error in faith then
if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premised unto it it is very easie for me out of your own Mouth and Words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one Conclusion is there in the whole Fabrick of my Discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to Salvation are evidently contained in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one clearly confutable Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the argument of your first Ch that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of Religion such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such as are the disputes of Protestants Good men and lovers of truth of all Sides may be saved because all necessary things being supposed evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain sign that a Point is not evident than that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 31. Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 32. Grant this and the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be Fundamental which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be Preached to all men Those not Fundamental which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholick Church may Err in the latter kind of the said points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the being of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring Her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any Infallible Guide either to consign unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the Faith Not for the former end be cause this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned Nor for the latter because nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap will presently vanish 33. Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduced from this principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed necessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed 34. Fifthly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opposition to your Fifth Chap. will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary and for disturbing the Churches Peace and dividing Unity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismatical 35. Grant this sixthly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Hereticks seeing they believe all things evidently contained in Scripture which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixth Chapter is clearly confuted 36. Grant this Lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your Seventh Chapter that no Man can shew more Charity to himself than by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are supposed to believe and therefore may accordingly practice at least by their Religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 37. So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and therefore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this principle which is not only the Corner-stone or chief Pillar but even the base and adequate Foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firm and unmovable cannot but be the supporter of my Book and the certain ruin of yours is so far from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their Harmony of Confessions unanimously profess and maintain it And you your self C. 6. § 30. plainly confess as much in saying The whole Edifice of the Faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation 38. And thus your Venom against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two little impertinences whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Artic. of the Ch. of England The second because I have set down in writing motives which sometime induced me to forsake Protestantism and hitherto have not answered them 39. By the former of which objections it should seem that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be why have you so often upbraided them with-their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very gross mistakes And yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a saveable condition I do not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancy destroys not Salvation For the Church of England I am persuaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no Error in it which may necessitate or warrant any Man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much mistaken 40. Your other Objection is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former Unless perhaps it be a just
And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If she cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible Teacher of all Divine verities and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the Faith for she cannot teach us all Divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her do it and then we shall have a writing not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can do or not do no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Jesus if he had pleased could have writ us a rule of Faith so plain and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8. You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholden to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answer First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetual Miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its own saying so for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a Book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it self yet it may be so in it self and contain all the material Objects all the particular Articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this Writing doth contain the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is a perfect rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the Word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants do contains all the material Objects of Faith is a compleat and Total and not only an imperfect and a partial Rule 9. But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is Infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other Book of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answer Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say a Text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10. The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry Cosin German to the former When the first Books of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritter Tradition Therefore now also that all the Books of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which Argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the Divine Doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the Divine Doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would fain confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it contain not all necessary Divine Truth But unless it do so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you do not imagine that we conceive any Antipathy between Gods Word Written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de Facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospel of Christ the whole Covenant between God and Man is now Written Whereas if he had pleased he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the Progress shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that says It were any injury to the written Word to be joyned with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyned but that we deny The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the Authority of the thing committed to his Custody But we know no one Society of Christians that is such a faithful Keeper as you pretend The Scripture it self was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be Divine and yet in several parts of your Church all of them until the last Age were so esteemed The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholly lost there remains no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glances at in his second Epistle to the Thesalon of the cause of the hindrance of the coming of
by Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule than you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it self no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches Infallibility is your ground I demand again some Infallible ground both for the Churches Infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches Infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no Wise Man denies it But then this authority is that of Universal Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of Saint Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church says is true 47. That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their Faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understandeng can deny For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main pillar of my Faith and for want of it I fear should be much staggered in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his belief of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must find fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Scholars for they all say the same 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understandings assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the Eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogy must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The Eye of the Soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily Eye And lastly assenting or believing to the Act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the Object on which it is imployed yet it self is presupposed and antecedent to the Act of seeing as the cause is always to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the understanding to assent The Understanding that 's the Eye and Objection which it works must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the belief whereof the Scripture moves and the understanding is moved which answers to the Act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect build an House that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that Jam factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a Dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you do and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have Faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians and believe the Gospel because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly Die for it yet indeed are Infidels and believe nothing The Scripture tells us The Heart of man
knoweth no Man but the Spirit of Man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us believe that we do not believe what we know we do But if I may think verily that I believe the Scripture and yet not believe it how know you that you believe the Roman Church I am as verily and as strongly persuaded that I believe the Scripture as you are that you believe the Church And if I may be deceived why may not you Again what more ridiculous and against sense and experience than to affirm That there are not Millions amongst you and us that believe upon no other reason than their Education and the authority of their Parents and Teachers and the Opinion they have of them The tenderness of the subject and aptness to receive impressions supplying the defect and imperfection of the Agent And will you proscribe from Heaven all those believers of your own Creed who do indeed lay the Foundation of their Faith for I cannot call it by any other name no deeper than upon the Authority of their Father or Master or Parish Priest Certainly if these have no true Faith your Church is very full of Infidels Suppose Xaverius by the Holiness of his Life had converted some Indians to Christianity who could for so I will suppose have no knowledge of your Church but from him and therefore must last of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverius Do these remain as very Pagans after their Conversion as they were before Are they brought to assent in their Souls and obey in their Lives the Gospel of Christ only to be Tantalized and not saved and not benefited but deluded by it because forsooth it is a man and not the Church that begets Faith in them What if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient Do they therefore not believe what they do believe because they do it upon sufficient motives They choose the Faith imprudently parhaps but yet they do choose it Unless you will have us believe that that which is done is not done because it is not done upon good reason which is to say that never any man living ever did a foolish action But yet I know not why the Authority of one Holy Man which apparently has no ends upon me joyned with the goodness of the Christian Faith might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to embrace Christianity than any I can have to continue in Paganism And therefore for shame if not for Love of Truth you must recant this fancy when you write again and suffer true Faith to be many times where your Churches Infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it And be content to tell us hereafter that we believe not enough and not go about to persuade us we believe nothing for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false you should gain only this Not to be believed when you speak truth Some pretty Sophisms you may happily bring us to make us believe we believe nothing but Wise men know that Reason against Experience is alwaies Sophistical And therefore as he that could not answer Zeno's subtilties against the existence of Motion could yet confute them by doing that which he pretended could not be done So if you should give me a hundred Arguments to persuade me because I do not believe Transubstantiation I do not believe in God and the Knots of them I could not unty yet I should cut them in pieces with doing that and knowing that I do so which you pretend I cannot do 53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius and Austine that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church Understanding by Church as here you explain your self The Credit of Tradition And that not the Tradition of the Present Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradidition which involves an evidence of Fact and from Hand to Hand from Age to Age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour Himself commeth to be confirmed by all these Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Thus you Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Prove your whole Doctrine or the Infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition and we will yield to you in all things Take the alledged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austin in this sense which is your own and they will not press us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholick Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon have so determined 54. We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholick Church did move us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himself and his Apostles Neither would Zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now do that by the Catholick Church the Church of all Ages fince Christ was to be understood As for the Council of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonical and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were only profitable and lawful to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the Book is Canonical where every body knows that Apocryphal Books are read as well as Canonical But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospel but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonical is to be so esteemed Though in the application of it to this or that particular Book they may happily Err and think that Book received as Canonical which was only received as Profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55. But we cannot be certain in what Language the Scriptures remain uncorrupted I HIL Not so certain I grant as of that which we can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will bear So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second Book of Baptism against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He means sure in matters of little moment such as concertain not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist clearly intimates a Neque enim sic posuit integritas atque notitia literarum quamlibet illustris Episcopi
notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatress so often translates false Or if you say she was you will run into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholick Church may Err in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonical 92. Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at several times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authentical and Canonical which is most evident out of the place of Malacby which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Mass that either all the Ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Jacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews according to the vulgar Edition But above all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93. Thus you see what reason we have to believe your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books be true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainly is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige him or would it follow from hence that He had obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irrisistably the true sense of Scripture God is not defective in things necessary neither will he leave himself without witness nor the World without means of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruption in those things which he would have known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only means of continuing the knowledg of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these means he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means For that were to cross the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedom cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with men and that is to set Life and Death before him and to leave him in the hands of his own Counsel God gave the Wisemen a Star to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this Star that was left to their liberty God gave the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by Night and a Pillar of Cloud by Day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he gives the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be followed like the Wisemens Star Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and love of the Truth and desire to find the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty than he can of the Sun to shine of the Sea to Ebb and Flow and of all other Creatures to do those things which by meer necessity they must do and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are Thousands of places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they do how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94. Again why does your Church thus put her Candle under a Bushel and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in Napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted Is it blasphemous to say so The Scripture it self tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does she imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unless we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible Interpretations would not be so 95. If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will do it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it I demand whether the Holy Ghosts moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth always move to an Action when he shews us plainly that it would be for the good of men and Honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot do it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so moved to go about this work then I confess you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Council for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Council of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publick Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himself in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your self ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he
Testament I believed by Fame strengthened with Celebrity and Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an Universal and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damn all to the Fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you profess it is lawful for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own Doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup the lawfulness and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Popes infallibility his Authority over Kings c so new I say in comparison of the undoubted Books of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority with wise and considerate men What madness is this Believe them the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damn all other parts of Christendom Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily persuade my self that I were not to believe in Christ than that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him at least than that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and false Authors have taken a fair way to make the Faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the Word of Christ 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 suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerful who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not Usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so upwards until we come to Christ himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the Fountain of Apostolick Tradition but have insinuated themselves into the Streams by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embrio's yet hatching and in the Shell as the Popes Infallibility the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception the Popes power over the Temporalities of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be imposed upon Christians under the Title of Original and Apostolick Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teaches me and not others and some things which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New and False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy and Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgment of those that have Wisdom and Experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so far 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 receive 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 102. Ad § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Judge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Judge and not the Scripture 103. To this I answer As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Judge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Judge otherwise you might make your self Judge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Judge of Controversies If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with Sopistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to infer in the end which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Judge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still run upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Judge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say Thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Judge of Controversies that they have the Authority of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking as of * Contra Parmen l. 5. in Prin. Optatus 104. But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Judge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both do what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intellible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether they be learned or unlearned And my reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed
but what is plainly revealed For to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous terms lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other is false that God obliges men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain means which is to say that like Pharaoh he gives no straw and requires brick that he reaps where he sows not that he gathers where he strews not that he will not be pleased with our utmost endeavors to please him without full and exact and never failing performance that his will is we should do what he knows we cannot do that he will not accept of us according to that which we have but requireth of us what we have not Which whether it can consist with his goodness with his wisdom and with his word I leave it to honest men to judge If I should send a Servant to Paris or Rome or Jerusalem and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way yet notwithstanding meeting often with such places where the road is divided into several ways whereof every one is as likely to be true and as likely to be false as any other should at length mistake and go out of the way would not any man say that I were an impotent foolish and unjust Master if I should be offended with him for doing so And shall we not tremble to impute that to God which we would take in foul scorn if it were imputed to our selves Certainly I for my part fear I should not love God if I should think so strangely of him 105. Again When you say that unlearned and ignorant men cannot understand Scripture I would desire you to come out of the Clouds and tell us what you mean Whether that they cannot understand all Scripture or that they cannot understand any Scripture or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to Heaven If the first I believe the Learned are in the same Case If the Second every mans experience will confute you for who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the Story the Precepts the Promises and the Threats of the Gospel If the Third that they may understand something but not enough for their Salvations I ask you first Why then doth Saint Paul say to Timothy The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation Why does Saint Austin say Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia continent quae pertinent ad Fidem Moresque vivendi Why does every one of the four Evangelists Intitle their Book The Gospel if any necessary and essential part of the Gospel were left out of it Can we imagine that either they omitted something necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so maliciously concealed it Or out of negligence did the work they had undertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work then certainly it most evidently follows that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ I mean all the essential and necessary parts of it So that if we had no other Book of Scripture but one of them alone we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation And what one of them has more than another it is only profitable and not necessary Necessary indeed to be believed because revealed but not therefore revealed because necessary to be believed 106. Neither did they write only for the Learned but for all men This being one especial means of the Preaching of the Gospel which was commanded to be Preached not only to Learned men but to all men And therefore unless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose we must conceive that they intended to speak plain even to the capacity of the simplest at least touching all things necessary to be published by them and believed by us 107. And whereas you pretend it is so easie and obvious both for the Learned and the ignorant both to know which is the Church and what are the Decrees of the Church and what is the sense of those Decrees I say this is a vain pretence 108. For First How shall an unlearned man whom you have supposed now ignorant of Scripture how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church You will say perhaps he must examine them by the notes of the Church which are perpetual Visibility Succession Conformity with the ancient Church c. But how shall he know first that these are the notes of the Church unless by Scripture which you say he understands not You may say perhaps he may be told so But seeing men may deceive and be deceived and their words are no demonstrations how shall he be assured that what they say is true So that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty and cannot know the Church but by such notes which whether they be the notes of the Church he cannot possibly know But let us suppose this Isthmus digged through and that he is assured these are the notes of the true Church How can he possibly be a competent Judge which Society of Christians hath Title to these notes and which hath not Seeing this Trial of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no unlearned can have because he that hath it cannot be unlearned As for example how shall he possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetual Succession of Visible Professors which held always the same Doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary unless he hath first examined what was the Doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult work than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary understanding may Judge Let us imagine him advanced a step farther and to know which is the Church how shall he know what that Church hath Decreed seeing the Church hath not been so careful in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted Besides when even the Learned among you are not agreed concerning divers things whether they be De Fide or not how shall the unlearned do Then for the sense of the Decrees how can he be more capable of the understanding of them then of plain Texts of Scripture which you will not suffer him to understand Especially seeing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councils are conceived so obscurely
fail of performance by reason of their Error 128. But It is more useful fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to have besides an infallible Rule to go by a living infallible Judge to determine them from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Judge But why then may not another say that it is yet more useful for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should be infallible than that the Pope only should Another that it would be yet more useful that all the Archbishops of every Province should be so than that the Patriarchs only should be so Another that it would be yet more useful if all the Bishops of every Diocess were so Another that it would be yet more available that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so Another that it would be yet more excellent if all the Fathers of Families were so And lastly another that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so just as much as the prevention of Controversies is better than the decision of them and the prevention of Heresies better than the condemnation of them and upon this ground conclude by your own very consequence That not only a general Council nor only the Pope but all the Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Pastors Fathers nay all the men in the World are infallible If you say now as I am sure you will that this conclusion is most gross and absurd against sense and experience then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows viz. that That course of dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine Providence which seems most fit to humane reason 129. And so likewise That there should men succeed the Apostles which could shew themselves to be their successors by doing of Miracles by speaking all kind of Languages by delivering men to Satan as S. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian it is manifest in human reason it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies than that the successour of the Apostles should have none of these gifts and for want of the signs of Apostleship be justly questionable whether he be his successor or no and will you now conclude That the Popes have the gift of doing Miracles as well as the Apostles had 130. It were in all reason very useful and requisite that the Pope should by the assistance of Gods Spirit be freed from the vices and passions of men lest otherwise the Authority given him for the good of the Church he might imploy as divers Popes you well know have done to the disturbance and oppression and mischief of it And will you conclude from hence That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men That there never have been ambitious covetous lustful tyrannous Popes 131. Who sees not that for mens direction it were much more beneficial for the Church that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person than in a general Council That so the means of deciding Controversies might be speedy easie and perpetual whereas that of general Councils is not so And will you hence infer that not the Church Representative but the Pope is indeed the infallible Judge of Controversies certainly if you should the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good conclusion 132. It had been very commodious one would think that seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated or else in his Providence he knew it would be so that he had appointed some men for this business and by his Spirit assisted them in it that so we might have Translations as Authentical as the Original yet you see God did not think fit to do so 133. It had been very commodious one would think that the Scripture should have been at least for all things necessary a Rule plain and perfect And yet you say it is both imperfect and obscure even in things necessary 134. It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of Readings which makes men very uncertain in many places which is the Word of God and which is the error or presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us 135. Who can conceive but that an Apostolick Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have been strangely beneficial to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them as is by you pretended and God in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians would not accept of the Pope for the Judge of Controversies And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter 136. Who doth not see that supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church and Judge of Controversies that it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in Terms The Bishops of Rome shall be always Monarchs of the Church and they either alone or with their adherents the Guides of Faith and the Judges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians This if you will deal ingenuously you cannot but acknowledge for then all true Christians would have submitted to him as willingly as to Christ himself neither needed you and your fellows have troubled your self to invent so many Sophisms for the proof of it There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians than there is of the Nativity Passion Resurrection or Ascension of Christ You were best now rub your forehead hard and conclude upon us that because this would have been so useful to have been done therefore it is done Or if you be as I know you are too ingenuous to say so then must you acknowledge that the ground of your Argument which is the very ground of all these absurdities is most absurd and that it is our duty to be humbly thankful for those sufficient nay abundant means of Salvation which God hath of his own goodness granted us and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done because forsooth in our vain judgments it seems convenient he should have done so 137. But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church and existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Out of which words I can frame no other argument for you than this There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures existence and the Churches infallibility therefore the Church is infallible Which consequence will then be good when you can shew that nothing can be untrue but that only which is impossible that whatsoever may be done that also is done Which if it were true would conclude both you and me to be infallible as well as
a crime is common to us with you as I have proved above and the difference is not that we are choosers and you not choosers but that we as we conceive choose wisely but you being wilfully blind choose to follow those that are so too not remembring what our Saviour hath told you when the Blind lead the Blind both shall fall into the Ditch But then again I must tell you you have done ill to confound together Judges and infallible Judges unless you will say either that we have no Judges in our Courts of Civil judicature or that they are all Infallible 154. Thus have we cast off your dilemma and broken both the Horns of it But now my retortion lies heavy upon you and will not be turned off For first you content not your selves with a moral certainty of the things you believe nor with such a degree of assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant which is all that we require Gods Spirit if he please may Work more and certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence But neither God doth nor man may require of us as our Duty to give a greater assent to the conclusion than the premises deserve to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible and not infallible as it were a great and heavy building upon a Foundation that hath not strength proportionable But though God require not of us such unreasonable things You do and tell men they cannot be saved unless they believe your Proposals with an infallible Faith To which end they must believe also your Propounder your Church to be simply Infallible Now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the Churches infallibility unless they have some infallible means to know that she is infallible Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means but by some other and so on for ever unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the Rock that is to settle all upon something evident of it self which is not so much as pretended But the last resolution of all is into Motives which indeed upon examination will scarce appear probable but are not so much as avouched to be any more than very credible For example if I ask you why you do believe Transubstantiation What can you answer but because it is a Revelation of the prime Verity I demand again how can you assure your self or me of that being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so And what can you say but that you know it to be so because the Church says so which is Infallible If I ask what mean You by your Church You can tell me nothing but the Company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demand then lastly Why should I believe this Company to be the Infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a Man to this belief But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them pass for such because now we have not leisure to examine them Yet methinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat less that her Proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And methinks You should require only a Moral and Modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and Infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motiues at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or Inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery give me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Judge of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Yours 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies have not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I have not greater reason to believe you do Err than that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Judge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few contain and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all Controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Romes conformity with the Ancient Church unless I know first what the Ancient Church did hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seem not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetual to it So that for ought I can see Judges we are and must be of all sides every one for himself and God for us all 155. § 26. C. M. I ask whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith be a Fundamental point of Faith or no I HIL I answer This assertion that Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamental nor Unfundamental point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plain falshood It is not a Judge of Controversies but a Rule to Judge them by and that not an absolutely perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must always need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Universal Tradition So that Universal Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a stream of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truly Universal for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Judges of Controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being
4.11 he hath given Pastors and Doctors c. lest we should be carried about with every wind of Doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called l 1 Tim. 3.15 The House of God a Pillar and ground of Truth and seeing of any particular Church it is written m Mat. 18.17 He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican We might refer it to any man that prays for Gods Spirit for it is written n Mat. 7.8 Every one that asketh receiveth and again o Jam. 1.5 If any man want Wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not Lastly we might refer it to the Jews for without all doubt of them it is written p Isai 59.21 my Spirit that is in thee c. All these means of agreement whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture d Mat. 18.20 as that which you obtrude upon us offer themselves upon a sudden to me happily many more might be thought on if we had time but these are enough to shew that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences we had them in great abundance And if you say these would fail us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Councils confirmed by Popes against Councils confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 9. Lastly whereas you find fault That Protestants upbraided with their discords answer that they differ only in points not Fundamental I desire you tell me whether they do so or do not so If they do so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer If you say they do not so but in points Fundamental also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you And therefore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more than to your selves their more and greater differences from you 10. But they are convinced sometime even by their own confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery and then they reply those Fathers may nevertheless be saved because those Errors were not Fundamental And may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men that the Fathers taught divers points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome Do not your Purging Indexes clip the Tongues and seal up the Lips of a great many for such confessions And is not the above cited confession of your Doway Divines plain and full to the same purpose And do not you also as freely as we charge the Fathers with Errors and yet say they were saved Now what else do we understand by an unfundamental Error but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved So that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults and urging arguments against us which return more strongly upon your selves 11. But your will is we should remember that Christ must alwaies have a visible Church Answ Your pleasure shall be obeyed on condition you will not forget that there is a difference between perpetual Visibility and perpetual Purity As for the answer which you make for us true it is we believe the Catholick Church cannot perish yet that she may and did Err in points not Fundamental and that Protestants were obliged to forsake these Errors of the Church as they did though not the Church for her Errors for that they did not but continued still members of the Church For it is not all one though you perpetually confound them to forsake the Errors of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her Errors and simply to forsake the Church No more than it is for me to renounce my Brothers or my Friends Vices or Errors and to renounce my Brother or my Friend The former then was done by Protestants the latter was not done Nay not only not from the Catholick but not so much as from the Roman did they separate per omnia but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious If you would at this time propose a form of Liturgy which both Sides hold lawful and then they would not joyn with you in this Liturgy you might have some colour then to say they renounce your communion absolutely But as things are now ordered they cannot joyn with you in prayers but they must partake with you in unlawful practices and for this reason they not absolutely but thus far separate from your communion And this I say they were obliged to do under pain of damnation Not as if it were damnable to hold an Error not damnable but because it is damnable outwardly to profess and maintain it and to joyn with others in the practice of it when inwardly they did not hold it Now had they continued in your communion that they must have done vid. have professed to believe and externally practised your Errors whereof they were convinced that they were Errors which though the matters of the Errors had been not necessary but only profitable whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and Hypocrisie I leave it to you to Judge You your self tell us within two pages after this that you are obliged never to speak any one least lie against your knowledge § 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetual lie 12. As for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at That both Catholicks and Protestants according to the opinion of Protestants may be saved in their several professions because forsooth we both agree in all Fundamental points I Answer this proposition so crudely set down as you have here set it down I know no Protestant will justifie For you seem to make them teach that it is an indifferent thing for the attainment of Salvation whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or die so he die in either of them whereas all that they say is this That those amongst you which want means to find the Truth and so die in Error or use the best means they can with industry and without partiality to find the Truth and yet die in Error these men thus qualified notwithstanding these Errors may be saved Secondly for those that have means to find the Truth and will not use them they conceive though their case be dangerous yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins known and unknown their Salvation is not desperate The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ and Repentance being as it were an Antidote against their Errors and their negligence in seeking the Truth Especially seeing by confession of
And he more likely to err than any other because he may err and thinks he cannot and because he conceives the Spirit absolutely promised to the succession of Bishops of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because he seeth him not neither knoweth him 38. Ad § 16. To this Paragraph which pretends to shew that if the Catholick Church be fallible in some points it follows that no true Protestant can with assurance believe the Universal Church in any one point of Doctrin I Answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she says yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or Universal Tradition be it Fundamental or be it not Fundamental This you say we cannot in points not Fundamental because in such we believe she may err But this I know we can because though she may err in some things yet she does not err in what she proves though it be not Fundamental Again you say we cannot do it in Fundamentals because we must know what points be Fundamental before we go to learn of her Not so but I must learn of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamental or not Fundamental For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrin that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word unless I be taught it So then the Church is though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it 39. But the Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentals unless I know them before I go to learn of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her The reason and connexion of this consequence I fear neither I nor you do well understand And besides I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible directer in Fundamentals For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is fundamental and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs do us this favor to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in fundamentals and being an infallible guide in fundamentals That there shall be always a Church infallible in fundamentals we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be always a Church But that there shall be always such a Church which is an infallible Guide in fundamentals this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself 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 repair to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be in himself infallible You see then there is a wide difference between these two and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them nor to take the one for the other 40. But they that know what points are Fundamental otherwise than by the Churches authority learn not of the Church Yes they may learn of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not so and consequently learn even of the Church even of your Church that all is not fundamental nay all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learn of a Church how to confute the Errors of that Church which taught him as well as of my Master in Physick or the Mathematicks I may learn those rules and principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous conclusions 41. But you ask If the Church be not an infallible teacher why are we commanded to hear to seek to obey the Church I Answer For commands to seek the Church I have not yet met with any and I believe you if you were to shew them would be your self to seek But yet if you could produce some such we might seek the Church to many good purposes without supposing her a Guide infallible And then for hearing and obeying the Church I would fain know whether none may be heard and obeyed but those that are infallible Whether particular Churches Governors Pastors Parents be not to be heard and obeyed Or whether all these be Infallible I wonder you will thrust upon us so often these worn-out Objections without taking notice of their Answers 42. Your Argument from S. Austine's first place is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter If the whole Church practise any of these things matters of order and decency for such only there he speaks of to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madness And from hence you infer If the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether it ought to be done is insolent madness As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things Or as if I might not esteem it pride and folly to contradict and disturb the Church for matter of order pertaining to the time and place and other circumstances of Gods worship and yet account it neither pride nor folly to go about to reform some errors which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate the very substance of Gods worship It was a practice of the whole Church in Saint Austines time and esteemed an Apostolick Tradition even by Saint Austine himself That the Eucharist should be administred to Infants Tell me Sir I beseech you Had it been insolent madness to dispute against this practice or had it not If it had how insolent and mad are you that have not only disputed against it but utterly abolished it If it had not then as I say you must understand Saint Austines words not simply of all things but as indeed he himself restrained them of these things of matter of Order Decency and Uniformity 44. Obj. But the Doctrines that Infants are to be baptized and those that are baptized by Hereticks are not to be rebaptized are neither of them to be proved by Scripture And yet according to S. Austine they are true Doctrins and we may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church which we could not be unless the
Church were Infallible therefore the Clurch is Infallible I answer that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough of the Universal Traditions of the ancient Church such as in S. Austin's account these were which here are spoken of and yet not be certain enough of the definitions of the present Church Unless you can shew which I am sure you can never do that the Infallibility of the present Church was always a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your main business is to prove the present Church Infallible not so much in consigning ancient Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it follows not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some Doctrin touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seems repugnant Now the Doctrins which S. Austin received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrins for which we deny your Churches Infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches Authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austin laid upon it yet happily it may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all to deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an Idolater of S. Austin as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he says it nor that all his sentences are Oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Universal Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the nearness of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I profess I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my self to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this door as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Universal of some time and the Church Universal of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falsehood And therefore the belief or practice of the present Universal Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrin so believed or the custom so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the Doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for Infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own Opinions but as Apostolick Traditions And therefore measuring the Doctrin of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinal Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the Doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholick at some other time I believe you will not think it needful for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountains of contradictious Doctrines or that being the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Universal Traditions of the Church were all Apostolical seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian a De Corona Militis c 3. 4. Where having recounted sundry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christians many whereof by the way notwithstanding the Council of Trents profession to receive them and the written Word with the like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of Milk and Honey presently after Abstaining from Bathes for a week after Accounting it an impiety to pray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in the 3. chap. He adds another in the fourth of the Veiling of Women And then adds Since I find no law for this it follows that Tradition must have given this observation to custom which shall gain in time Apostolick authority by the interpretation of the reason of it By these examples therefore it is declared that the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custom may be defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the goodnest of the Tradition Now custom even in civil affairs where a law is wanting passes for a law Neither is it material whether it be grounded on Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendation enough for a law Moreover if law be grounded on reason all that must be law which is so grounded A quocunque productum Whosoever is the producer of it Do ye think it is not lawful Omni fideli for every faithful man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord says why even of our selves judge ye not what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore censetur nec auctorem respiciens sed Auctoritatem From whatsoever Traditor it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority Quicunque traditor any Author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolick Seeing the direction then was b Hier. Precepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Julius Caesar was Emperor of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many works which our Saviour did which S. John supposes would not have been contained in a World of Books if they had been written or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faithful keeper Records are than report those few that were written are preserved and believed those infinity more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of
believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholick Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few Ages after Christ So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinal Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alledged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tell us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist to the Thessalonians yet were afterwards witten and in other Books of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist which was never written that he lays this injunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholick Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist But what if they did not perform their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to do that which you cannot do your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what withholdeth Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can ye or dare you say this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot go then and Vaunt your Church for the only Watchful Faithful Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Premitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no Footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine Faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodness of God who seeing that what was not written was in such danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written S. Chrysostoms counsel therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withal that we are persuaded we cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good Plea to be the unwritten Word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture to be the written Word of God 47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austin's who says The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good Life and from hence you conclude that it never hath done so nor never can do so But though the argument hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back again à non esse ad non posse The Church cannot do this therefore it does it not follows with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall never do it nor can never do it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remains that the thing you inquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore do that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austin of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor does any thing against Faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austin according to you thought approve or dissemble or do any thing against Faith or good Life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely than the commandments of God himself This S. Austin himself professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I do infinitely grieve at that many most wholesom precepts of the Divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the Earth with his naked Foot than he that shall bury his Soul in Drunkenness Of these he says that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councils nor corroborated by the Custom of the Universal Church And though not against Faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian Liberty which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable than that of Christians And therefore he professes of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And ubi facultas tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so far through the indiscreet devotion of the People always more prone to superstion than true Piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their Birth that himself though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them 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 disallow Nay the Catholick Church it self did see and dissemble and tolerate them for these are the things of which he presently says after the Church of God and you will have him speak of the true Catholick Church placed between Chaffe and Tares tolerates many things Which was directly against the command of the Holy Spirit given the Church by S. Paul To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free and not to suffer her self to be brought in bondage to these survile burdens Our Saviour tells the Scribes and Pharisees that in vain they Worshiped God teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments For that laying aside the Commandments of God they held the Traditions of men as the washing of Pots and Cups and many other such like things Certainly that which S. Austin complains of as the general fault of Christians of his time was parallel to this Multa saith he quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviours Words The commandments of God are laid aside and then tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia all things or all places are so full of so many presumptions and those exacted with such severity nay with Tyranny that he was more severely censured who in the time of his Octaves touched the Earth with his naked Feet than he which drowned and buried his Soul in Drink Certainly if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments I know not what is And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to Worship God in vain as well as Scribes and Pharisees And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind were then already spread over the Church being different in divers place This is plain from these Words of S. Austin of them diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not oppose it liberiùs improbare non audeo I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholick Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemn it is to say if we Judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Universal superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition and with the accomplishment of that pretended Prophesie of the Church I have set Watchmen upon thy Walls O Jerusalem which shall never hold their peace Day nor Night besides how these superstitions being thus nourished cherished and strengthned by the practice of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the commandments of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deep Root and spread their Branches so far as to pass for Universal Customs of the Church he that does not see sees nothing Especially considering the catching and contagious nature of this sin and how fast ill Weeds spread and how true and experimented that rule is of the Historian Exempla non confistunt ubi incipiunt sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem Examples do not stay where they begin but tho at first pent up in a narrow Tract they make themselves room for extravagant wandrings Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austins time prevailed so far as to be Consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum confirmed by the Custom of the Universal Church who can doubt that considers that the practice of Commiunicating Infants had even then got the credit and authority not only of an Universal Custom but also of an Apostolick Tradition 49. But now after all this ado what if S. Austin says 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 in the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would have it yet you should not have dissembled that others read the place otherwise vix Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen quae sunt contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c. The Church tolerates many things and yet what is against Faith or good Life a good man will neither approve nor dissemble nor practise 50. Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaacc is a point very far from being Fundamental and yet I hope you will grant that Protestants believing Scripture to be the Word of God may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it For what if they say that the Catholick Church and much more themselves may possibly Err in some unfundamental points it is therefore consequent they can be certain of none such What if a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence conceive my self certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them And then for points Fundamental to what purpose do you say That we must first know what they be before we can be assured that we cannot Err in understanding the Scripture when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot Err but only to a sufficient certainty that we do not Err but rightly understand those things that are plain whether Fundamental or not Fundamental That God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him That there is no Salvation but by Faith in Christ That by repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sins may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body These we conceive both true because the Scripture says so and Truths Fundamental because they are necessary parts of the Gospel whereof our Saviour saies Qui non crediderit damnabitur All which we either learn from Scripture immediately or learn of those that learn it of Scripture so that neither Learned nor Unlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture And therefore in imputing this to us you cannot excuse your self from having done us a palpable injury 52. Ad § 19. To that which is here urged of the differences amongst Protestants concerning many points I answer that those differences between Protestants concerning Errors damnable and not damnable Truths Fundamental and not Fundamental may be easily reconciled For either the Error they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Error is it self sinful and consequently in its own nature damnable As if by negligence in seeking the Truth by unwillingness to find it by Pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion should
Catalogue of Fundamentals And therefore if this be all your reason to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals we cannot but think your demand unreasonable Especially having your self expressed the cause of the difficulty of it and that is Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to Salvation Yet not so seldom but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity if it were necessary but I have shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesom to my self Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receive a particular Catalogue of what I conceive Fundamental with the other For as yet I see no such fair proceeding as you talk of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which here you have given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet composed of one Ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity Mistaken demands a particular Cataloge of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to Salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Banckrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any one point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholick Visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposal Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Council without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Council confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretick that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Council confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrine or Practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrine or Practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the Vulgar Bible now Authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholick Visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endeavour to know Explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some Doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not Err in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Error Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps Ten or Twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither Err nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite Faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the
contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to inform his Conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you have given fair and ingenious answers you shall hear further from me 55. Ad § 20. At the first entrance into this Parag. from our own Doctrine That the Church cannot Err in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must forsake it in nothing least we should forsake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsly imposed upon us and as we understand it will do you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies somewhere or other unerring in Fundamentals our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should Err in Fundamentals for if it should do so it would want the very essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this priviledg to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty have concluded that we could not in Wisdom forsake this Church in any point for fear of forsaking it in a necessary point But now that we say not this of any one determinate Church which alone can perform the Office of Guide or Director but indefinitely of the Church meaning no more but this That there shall be alwaies in some place or other some Church that Errs not in Fundamentals will you conclude from hence that we cannot in Wisdom forsake this or that the Roman or the Greek Church for fear of Erring in Fundamentals 56. Yea but you may say for I will make the best I can of all your Arguments That this Church thus unerring in Fundamentals when Luther arose was by our confession the Roman and therefore we ought not in Wisdom to have departed from it in any thing I answer First that we confess no such thing that the Church of Rome was then this Church but only a Part of it and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could have been thus far secured this Argument had some shew of reason But seeing we are not warranted thus much by any priviledg of that Church that she cannot Err Fundamentally but only from Scripture which assures us that she doth Err very heinously collect our hope that the Truths she retains and the practice of them may prove an Antidote to her against the Errors which she maintains in such Persons as in simplicity of Heart follow this Absalom we should then do against the light of our Conscience and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her Errors though not Fundamental Neither can we thus conclude we may safely hold with the Church of Rome in all her points for she cannot Err damnably For this is false she may though perhaps she does not But rather thus These points of Christianity which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the Poyson of all Sins and Errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retains therefore we hope she Errs not Fundamentally but still remains a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she Errs not Fundamentally assures us that in many things and those of great moment she Errs very greviously And these Errors though to them that believe them we hope they will not be pernitious yet the professing of them against Conscience could not but bring us to certain damnation As for the fear of departing from some Fundamental Truths withal while we depart from her Errors Happily it might work upon us if adhering to her might secure us from it and if nothing else could But both these are false For first adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in Fundamentals Because though de facto we hope she does not Err yet we know no priviledges she has but she may Err in them her self and therefore we had need have better security hereof than her bare Authority Then secondly without dependence on her at all we may be secured that we do not Err Fundamentally I mean by believing all those things plainly set down in Scripture wherein all things necessary and most things profitable are plainly delivered Suppose I were Travelling to London and knew two ways thither the one very safe and convenient the other very inconvenient and dangerous but yet a way to London and that I overtook a Passenger on the way who himself believed and would fain perswade me there was no other way but the worse and would perswade me to accompany him in it because I confessed his way though very inconvenient yet a way so that going that way we could not fail of our Journies end by the consent of both Parties but he believed my way to be none at all and therefore I might justly fear lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way I left the true and the only way If now I should not be more secure upon my own knowledge than frighted by this fallacity would you not beg me for a Fool Just so might you think of us if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear For the only and the main reason why we believe you not to Err in Fundamentals is your holding the Doctrines of Faith in Christ and Repentance which knowing we hold as well as you notwithstanding our departure from you we must needs know that we not Err in Fundamentals as well as we know that you do not Err in some Fundamentals and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary Yet let us be more liberal to you and grant that which can never be proved that God had said in plain terms The Church of Rome shall never destroy the Foundation but withal had said that it might and would lay much Hay and Stubble upon it That you should never hold any Error destructive of Salvation but yet many that were prejudicial to Edification I demand might we have dispensed with our selves in the believing and professing these Errors in regard of the smalness of them Or had it not been a damnable sin to do so though the Errors in themselves were not damnable Had we not had as plain Direction to depart from you in some things profitable as to adhere to you in things necessary In the beginning of your Book when it was for your purpose to have it so the greatness or smalness of the matter was not considerable
as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that Infallibility or absolute Authority which we take away from you But if you would have spoken to the purpose you should have said that in following her you should sooner have been excused than in cleaving to the Scripture and to God himself 63. Whereas you say The fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her errors have failed even in fundamental points ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practice This is just as if you should say divers men have fallen into Scylla with going too far from Charybdis be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis divers leaving prodigality have fallen into covetousness therefore be you constant to prodigality many have fallen from worshipping God perversely and foolishly not to worship him at all from worshipping many Gods to worship none this therefore ought to deter men from leaving Superstition or Idolatry for fear of falling into Atheism and Impiety This is your counsel and Sophistry but God says clean contrary Take heed you swerve not either to the right hand or to the left you must not do evil that good may come thereon therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evil you must not be obstinate in a certain error for fear of an uncertain What if some forsaking the Church of Rome have forsaken Fundamental Truths Was this because they forsook the Church of Rome No sure this is non causa pro causa for else all that have forsaken that Church should have done so which we say they have not But because they went too far from her the golden mean the narrow way is hard to be found and hard to be kept hard but not impossible hard but yet you must not please your self out of it though you err on the right hand though you offend on the milder part for this is the only way that leads to life and few there be that find it It is true if we said there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to perswade any man to leave it But we protest and proclaim the contrary and that we have very little hope of their Salvation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or unwillingness to find it live and die in the errors and impieties of that Church and therefore cannot but conceive those fears to be most foolish and ridiculous which perswade men to be constant in one way to hell lest happily if they leave it they should fall into another 64. Obj. Some Protestants pretending to reform the Church are come to affirm that she perished for many Ages which others cannot deny to be a Fundamental Error against the Article of the Creed I believe the Catholick Church and affirm the Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa To this I Answer First that the error of the Donatists was not that they held it possible that some or many or most parts of Christendom might fall away from Christianity and that the Church may loose much of her amplitude and be contracted to a narrow compass in comparison of her former extent which is proved not only possible but certain by irrefragable experience For who knows not that Gentilism and Mahumetism mans wickedness deserving it and Gods providence permitting it have prevailed to the utter extirpation of Christianity upon far the greater part of the world And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing This therefore was no error in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contradicted to a lesser or that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa For why not to Africk then as well as within these few ages you pretend it was to Europe But their error was that they held de facto this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify separated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the Church and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himself from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawful to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicism in the very same nature with their Errors who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men than God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemy of the Churches Universality by hindring either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would have made them members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they have not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholicks believe nothing at all as not to believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists and those Zelots of the Mosaical Law I leave it to the judgment of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I add moreover that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the Church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendor and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamental Error to hold that the Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 69. Ad § 23. In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alledged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say clearly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith You will confess I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord-Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord-Keeper should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it
writings be as fit for such a purpose as the Decrees of your Doctors Surely their intent in writing was to conserve us in unity of Faith and to keep us from Error and we are sure God spake in them but your Doctors from whence they are we are not so certain Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling or unable to direct them so that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing For if he were both able and willing to do so then certainly he did do so And then their writings may be very sufficient means if we would use them as we should do to preserve us in unity in all necessary points of Faith and to guard us from all pernitious Error 81. If yet you be not satisfied but will still pretend that all these words by you cited seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Universally infallible without which Unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin I Ans That to you which will not understand that there can be any means to conserve the unity of Faith but only that which conserves your authority over the Faithful it is no marvel that these words seem to prove that the Church nay that your Church is universally Infallible But we that have no such end no such desires but are willing to leave all men to their liberty provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit he gave at his Ascension and he promised to the Worlds end Besides though you whom it concerns may happily flatter your selves that you have not only Pastors and Doctors but Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists and those distinct from the former still in your Church yet we that are disinteressed persons cannot but smile at these strange imaginations Lastly though you are apt to think your selves such necessary instruments for all good purposes and that nothing can be well done unless you do it that no unity or constancy in Religion can be maintained but inevitably Christendom must fall to ruin and confusion unless you support it yet we that are indifferent and impartial and well content that God should give us his own favours by means of his own appointment not of our choosing can easily collect out of these very words that not the Infallibility of your or of any Church but the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists c. which Christ gave upon his Ascension were designed by him for the compassing all these excellent purposes by their preaching while they lived and by their writings for ever And if they fail hereof the Reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means but the voluntary perversness of the Subjects they have to deal with who if they would be themselves and be content that others should be in the choice of their Religion the servants of God and not of men if they would allow that the way to Heaven is no narrower now than Christ left it his yoak no heavier than he made it that the belief of no more difficulties is required now to Salvation than was in the Primitive Church that no Error is in it self destructive and exclusive from Salvation now which was not then if instead of being zealous Papists earnest Calvinists rigid Lutherans they would become themselves and be content that others should be plain and honest Christians if all men would believe the Scripture and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion would sincerely endeavour to find the true sense of it and live according to it and require no more of others but to do so nor denying their Communion to any that do so would so order their publick service of God that all which do so may without scruple or hypocrisie or protestation against any part of it joyn with them in it who does not see that seeing as we suppose here and shall prove hereafter all necessary Truths are plainly and evidently set down in Scripture there would of necessity be among all men in all things necessary unity of Opinion And notwithstanding any other differences that are or could be unity of Communion and Charity and mutual Toleration By which means all Schism and Heresie would be banished the World and those wretched contentions which now rend and tear in pieces not the Coat but the Members and Bowels of Christ which mutual pride and Tyranny and cursing and killing and damning would fain make immortal should speedily receive a most blessed Catastrophe But of this hereafter when we shall come to the question of Schism wherein I perswade my self that I shall plainly shew that the most vehement accusers are the greatest offenders and that they are indeed at this time the greatest Schismaticks who make the way to Heaven narrower the yoak of Christ heavier the differences of Faith greater the conditions of Ecclesiastical Communion harder and stricter than they were made at the beginning by Christ and his Apostles they who talk of Unity but aim at Tyranny and will have peace with none but with Slaves and Vassals In the mean while though I have shewed how Unity of Faith and Unity of Charity too may be preserved without your Churches Infallibility yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seems to be universally Infallible meaning to your self of which you are a better judge than I Therefore I willingly grant your conclusion and proceed 86. As for your pretence That to find the meaning of those places you confer divers Texts you consult Originals you examin Translations and use all the means by Protestants appointed I have told you before that all this is vain and hypocritical if as your manner and your doctrin is you give not your self liberty of judgment in the use of these means if you make not your selves Judges of but only Advocates for the doctrin of your Church refusing to see what these means shew you if it any way make against the doctrin of your Church though it be as clear as the light at noon Remove prejudice even the ballance and hold it even make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven so you go the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the means and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 88. Whereas you say that it were great impiety to imagin that God the lover of Souls hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than Gods Commandments make Certainly God is no way obliged either by his promise or his love to give us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I have proved at large
Commandments and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how far obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead The cessation of the Old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34. Secondly the Question touching Fundamentals is profitable but not Fundamental He that believes all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any Error in Faith though he believe more or less to be Fundamental than is so That also of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the New Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitive Church until I see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35. Thirdly These Doctrines that Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the word of God that S. Peter had no such primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect rule of Faith aad consequently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or succession of Christians absolutely Infallible These to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so But not so necessary that every Man and Woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be Divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other points are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrines above mentioned which were never pretended to have place in the Creed There remains one only point of all that Army you Mustred together reducible to none of these Heads and that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the denial of merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the Doctrine of merit methinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold merit because we hold this point Then that we deny this point because we deny merit Beside when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits you know right well for so they have declared themselves a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well doing extendeth not is not truly beneficial to God with our Saviour when they have done all which they are commanded they have done their duty only and no courtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more than doing is not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their Doctrine of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himself Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equal unto and well worthy of Eternal Glory which is prepared for them As for the inconvenience which you so much fear That the denial of Merit makes God a giver only and not a rewarder I tell you good Sir you fear where no fear is and that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of Eternal Glory make God a rewarder only and not a giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is Eternal Life And that it is most false on the other side that the Doctrine of Protestants makes God a giver only and not a rewarder In as much as their Doctrine is That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it and so his gift is also a Reward but withal that whatsoever they do is due unto God beforehand and worth nothing to God and worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so Mans work is no Merit and Gods reward is still a Gift 36. Put the case the Pope for a reward of your Service done him in writing this Book had given you the Honour and means of a Cardinal would you not not only in humility but in sincerity have professed that you had not merited such a reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creator nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactor sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your Service as God hath in respect of precedent obligations Besides the work you have done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the forementioned reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal Happiness I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinals Cap than a Crown of immortal Glory and with that Cardinal to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37. As for your distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vain and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so that always hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospel of Christ The Doctrine of your Church may like a Snow-ball increase with rouling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Jesus so his Gospel is yesterday and to day and the same for ever 38. Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other Commission than this Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their Commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a Commission at large to teach what she pleases and call it the Gospel of Christ let her produce her Letters patents from Heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacriledg in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kinds and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyn men to believe that there are or can be any other Fundamental Articles of the Gospel of Christ than what Christ himself commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39. Ad § 16 17. The saying of the most Learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach which shall be set down at the end of N.
43. is as great and as good a Truth and as necessary for these miserable times as can possibly be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Unity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hindrance to their Unity in Communion 40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unless that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgment all men are to submit themselves What then remains but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of Faith and obedience wherein they agree than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Communion than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those articles of Faith wherein all consent A joynt worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity which Christians owe one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was Universally believed of all Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to Heaven For why should men be more rigid than God Why should any Error exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of Eternal Salvation Now that Christians do generally agree in all those points of Doctrine which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Books of the Old and New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God And it is so certain that in all these Books all necessary Doctrines are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrine of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew and S. Mark and S. Luke and S. John as you do of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrines how have they complied with their own design which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospel of Christ and not a part of it Or how have they not deceived us in giving them such Titles By the whole Gospel of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and Man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of Saint Mark and Saint John I believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other very profitable things in the larger Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke And that Saint Marks Gospel wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he says Matthew to the Hebrews in their Tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel When Peter and Paul did Preach the Gospel and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the Scholar of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been Preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul compiled in a Book the Gospel which was Preached by him And afterwards John residing in Asia in the City of Ephseus did himself also set forth a Gospel 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Hereticks Lib. 3. c. 2. that pretended as you know who do now adaies that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospel were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospel which was Preached by S Peter was written by S Mark and so other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirm than confute their Error It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary Doctrine of the Gospel which was Preached by Saint Peter was written by Saint Mark. Now you will not deny I presume that Saint Peter Preached all therefore you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all 42. Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Johns intent in writing his Gospel whether it were to deliver so much truth as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to Eternal Life or only part of it and to leave part unwritten A great man there is but much less than the Apostle who saith that writing last he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists that had wrote before him which if it were true would sufficiently justifie what I have undertaken that at least all the four Evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ Neither will I deny but S. Johns secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels in some things very profitable But he that pretends that any necessary Doctrine is in S. John which is in none of the other Evangelists hath not so well considered them as he should do before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter And for his prime intent in writing his Gospel what that was certainly no Father in the World understood it better than himself Therefore let us hear him speak Many other signs saith he also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have Life in his name By these are written may be understood either these things are written or these signs are written
nullity in any decree that a Pope shall make or any Decree of a Council which he shall confirm Particularly it will be at least an even Wager that all the decrees of the Council of Trent are void because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope 62. Obj. But unless this Question be answered what points of the â—â—â—ed are and what are not Fundamentals the Proteâ—â—eâ—t Doctrine serves only either to make men despare or else to have recourse to those called Papists Answ It seems a little thing will make you despair if you be so sullen as to do so because men will not trouble themselves to satisfie your curious questions And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it because as before I told you if you will believe all the points of the Creed you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are Fundamental though you be ignorant which are so and which are not so Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentals proceeds only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them which seeing you may be assured of without knowing which they be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your self herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as far to seek as we in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter Fundamental and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Burial his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter Fundamental Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63. Obj. We give this certain Rule that all points defined by Christs Visible Church belong to the Foundation of Faith in this sense that to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation Answ So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those Books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the World acknowledge to be Canonical and submits himself indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things Fundamental and if he live according to his Faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I do not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the Foundation of Faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your self to danger of imbracing damnable Errors instead of Fundamental Truths 67. Ad § 23 24 25. D. P. demands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the Apostles bad And this he enforces with many Arguments thus May the Church of after Ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower than our Saviour left it Shall it be a fault to straiten and encomber the Kings high way with publick nuisances and is it lawful by adding new Articles to the Faith to retrench any thing from the Latitude of the King of Heavens high way to Eternal happiness The Yoak of Christ which he said was easie may it be justly made heavier by the Governors of the Church in after Ages The Apostles profess they revealed to the Church the whole Counsel of God keeping back nothing needful for our Salvation What Tyranny then to impose any new unnecessary matters on the Faith of Christians especially as the late Popes have done under the high commanding form Qui non crediderit damnabitur He that believeth not shall be damned If this may be done why then did our Saviour reprehend the Pharisees so sharply for binding heavy burdens and laying them on mens shoulders And why did he teach them that in vain they worshiped God teaching for Doctrines mens Traditions And why did the Apostles call it tempting of God to lay those things upon the Necks of Christians that were not necessary 68. All which interrogations seem to me to contain so many plain and convincing Arguments of the premised Assertion and if you can devise no fair and satisfying answer to them then be so ingenuous as to grant the Conclusion That no more can be necessary for Christians to believe now than was in the Apostles time A conclusion of great importance for the deciding of many Controversies and the disburdening of the Faith of Christ from many incumbrances 70. The Doctor to make good this conclusion argues further thus S. Paul declared to the Ephesians the whole Counsel of God touching their Salvation Therefore that which S. Paul did not declare can be no part of the Counsel of God and therefore not necessary And again S. Paul kept back nothing from the Ephesians that was profitable Therefore he taught them all things necessary to Salvation 71. Neither is it material that these words were particularly directed by S. Paul to the Pastours of the Church For to say nothing that the point here issuable is not Whom he taught whether Priests or Laymen But how much he taught and whether all things necessary it appears plainly out of the Text and I wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it that though he speaks now to the Pastors yet he speaks of what he taught not only them but also the Laity as well as them I have kept back nothing says S. Paul that was profitable but have shewed and have taught you publickly and from House to House Testifying I pray observe both to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ And a little after I know that ye all among whom I have gone Preaching the Kingdom of God shall see my Face no more Wherefore I take you to record this day that I am Innocent from the Blood of all men for I have kept nothing back but have shewed you all the Counsel of God And again Remember that by the space of three Years I ceased not to warn every one Night and Day with Tears Certainly though he did all these things to the Pastors among the rest nay above the rest yet without Controversie they whom he taught publickly and from House to House The Jews and Greeks to whom he Testified i. e. Preached Faith and Repentance Those all amongst whom he went preaching the Kingdom of God Those Every one whom for three Years together he warned were not Bishops and Pastors only 72. Neither is this to say that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed nothing of the
is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must be Hereticks because they separated from the Communion of the Visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35. Ans I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions and lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable than you can make your Negative We read in Scripture that Elias conceived there was none left besides himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own Country why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some Countrey or other there were not always some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and think it sufficient to tell you that if it be true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must have joyned with them in the practice of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be Schismatical 36. Yes you reply to forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formal and proper sin of Schism Answ Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I be bound for fear of Schism to communicate with those that believe as I do only in lawful things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in Superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the Faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would have them do or else forsooth they must be Schismaticks But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being Schismatical 37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants have this property therefore they are Schismaticks 38. Ans I deny the Syllogism it is no better than this One Smptom of the Plague is a Feaver but such a man hath a Feaver therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusion which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptom of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismaticks And as in the former instance The man that hath one sign of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not have the plague So these Protestants may have something of Schismaticks and yet not be Schismaticks A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemns a malefactor do both sentence a man to death and so for the matter do both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismaticks either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same do these Protestants yet are not Schismaticks The Reason because Schismaticks do it and do it without cause and Protestants have cause for what they do The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unless where they are excused by ignorance and expiated at least by a general repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismaticks do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted and therefore it follows not by any good Logick that all that do so when there is just cause for it must be Schismaticks The cause in this matter of separation is all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans Distinguish the quality of the Persons censured and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their ignorance which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errors from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that have eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too mild So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censured by the other 39. Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sin of Schism by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceive your self to have proved Schismaticks And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors which yet you confess were not fundamental shall it not be much more damnable to live in confraternity with these who defend an Error of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess to have been properly Heretical 40. Ans You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally by reason of your Errors and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintain Errors and Corruptions
hope for salvation yet without question it might send many souls to heaven who would gladly have embraced the Truth but that they wanted means to discover it Thirdly and lastly she may yet more truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny Jesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the Word of God Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline by her superinducing upon the rest of her Errors the Doctrin of her own Infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrin and not her doctrin to be judged of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectuall for her Reformation 20. Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers do assign Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so belie the Scripture as to say so of it unless he could have produced some one Text at least wherein this was plainly affirmed or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected For assure your self good Sir it is a very heinous crime to say thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should have been alledged wherein it should have been said whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretick or the Roman Church is infallible or the guide of Faith or at least There shall be always some Visible Church infallible in matters of Faith Some such direction as this I hoped for And I pray consider whether I had not reason The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the New Testament we all suppose were good men and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to Heaven we suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian Faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Unum Necessarium this most necessary point of all others without which as you pretend and teach all faith is no Faith that is that the Church of Rome was designed by God the guide of Faith We suppose them lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdom and such as knew that a doubtful and questionable guide was for mens direction as good as none at all And after all these suppositions which I presume no good Christian will call into question is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not one amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrin plainly so much as once Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Methinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospel of Christ could not possibly have omitted any one of them this most necessary point of faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Methinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Methinks instead of saying Your Faith is spoken of all the world over which you have no reason to be very proud of for he says the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms that their Faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would have forborn to put them in fear of an impossibility as he doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Jews had done Methinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have failed to have given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Methinks writing so often of Hereticks and Antichrist he should have given the world this as you pretend only sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the Faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successors the Bishops of Rome How was it possible that S. James and S. Jude in their Catholick Epistles should not give this Catholick direction Methinks S. John instead of saying he that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sons of God should have said He that adheres to the doctrin of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark ye shall know him What man not quite out of his wits if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrin that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not one say it plainly so much as once but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvel if he censure other inferior servants of Christ as Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assigns Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie But instead hereof what have you brought us but meer impertinences S. John saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Council to the contrary were persuaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same Book forewarns the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strange and unheard of strain of Logick Unless you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some Body goes
Faith was commended by the Preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have access Answ For S. Cyprian all the World knows that he b It is confessed by Baronius Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bellarm l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. §. Tertia ratio resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re-baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion c Confessed by Baronius An 258. N. 14. 15. By Card. Perron Repl. l. 1. c. 25. Ibid. were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excommunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinal Perren magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary and Cyprian in particular so far cast off as for it to be pronounced by Stephen a false Christ Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were commanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace and Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. John forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holds still his former opinion and though out of respect to the Churches peace d Vide Con. Carth. apud sur To. 1. he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise than he held yet he conceived Stephen and his adherents d Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. Aug. ep 48. lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. to hold a pernitious Error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversation in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so far was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that no other Bishop but our Lord Jesus only had power to Judge with Authority of his Judgment and as plainly intimates that Stephen for usurping such a power and making himself a Judge over Bishops was little better than a Tyrant and as heavily almost he censures him and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in Error in that very place where he delivers that famous saying How can he have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother little doubting it seems but a man might have the Church for his Mother who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome and far from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him that to be United to the Roman Church and to the Church was all one and that separation from S. Peters Chair was a mark I mean a certain mark either of Schism or Heresie 26. But you have given a false or at least a strained Translation of S. Cyprians forecited Words for Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have access as if he had exempted the Roman Church from a possibility of Error but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access meaning those perfidious Schismaticks whom he there complains of and of these by a Rhetorical insinuation he says that with such good Christians as the Romans were it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment As for his joyning the Principal Church and the Chair of Peter how that will serve to prove separation from the Roman Church to be a mark of Heresie it is hard to understand Though we do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chair of S. Peter in regard he is said to have Preached the Gospel there and the principal Church because the City was the principal and imperial City which prerogative of the City if we believe the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon was the ground and occasion why the Fathers of former times I pray observe conferred upon this Church this prerogative above other Churches 27. Obj. But in another place Epist 52. S. Cyprian makes Communicating with Cornelius the Bishop of Rome and with the Catholick Church to be the same Answ This does not prove that to Communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to Communicate with the Catholick Church is always for that you assume one and the same thing S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all but of the Bishop only who when he doth Communicate with the Catholick Church as Cornelius at that time did then whosoever Communicates with him cannot but Communicate with the Catholick Church and then by accident one may truely say such a one Communicates with you that is with the Catholick Church and that to Communicate with him is to Communicate with the Catholick Church As if Titius and Sempronius be together he that is in company with Titius cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius As if a General be marching to some place with an Army he that then is with the General must at that time be with the Army And a man may say without absurdity such a time I was with the General that is with the Army and that to be with the General is to be with the Army Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his Body the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to the Body and a man may say truly of it this finger is joyned to the hand that is to the Body and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body because all these things are by accident true And yet I hope you would not deny but the finger might possibly be joyned to the hand and yet not to the Body the hand being cut off from the Body and a man might another time be with his General and not with his Army he being absent from the Army And therefore by like Reason your collection is Sophistical being in effect but this to communicate with such a Bishop of Rome who did Communicate with the Catholick Church was to Communicate with the Catholick Church therefore absolutely and always it must be true that to Communicate with him is by consequent to Communicate with the Catholick Church and to be divided from the Communion is to be an Heretick 28. Obj. S. Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cont haer c. 3. Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most Ancient and known Church founded by the two glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles coming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by vain Glory Blindness
every one of these infallible as well as the Roman For though he make a Panegyrick of the Roman Church in particular and of the rest only in general yet as I have said for point of direction he makes them all equal and therefore makes them choose you whether either all fallible or all infallible Now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus or Corinth or if he did that as experience shews he Erred in doing so and what can hinder but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Roman Church or if he did that he Erred in doing so 38. Ad § 20 21 22 23. The sum of your discourse in these Sections if it be pertinent to the Question must be this Want of Succession of Bishops and Pastors holding always the same Doctrine and of the forms of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church is a certain mark of Heresie But Protestants want all these things Therefore they are Hereticks To which I answer That nothing but wnat of truth and holding Error can make or prove any man or Church Heretical For if he be a true Aristotelian or Platonist or Pyrrhonian or Epicurean who holds the Doctrine of Aristotle or Plato or Pirrho or Epicurus although he cannot assign any that held it before him for many Ages together why should I not be made a true and Orthodox Christian by believing all the Doctrine of Christ though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetual Succession that believed it before me By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastor or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one For if I may conform my will and actions to the Commandments of God why may I not embrace his Doctrine with my understanding although my predecessor do not so You have above in this Chapter defined Faith a free Infallible obscure supernatural assent to Divine Truths because they are revealed by God and sufficiently propounded This definition is very phantastical but for the present I will let it pass and desire you to give me some piece of shadow or reason why I may not do all this without a perpetual Succession of Bishops and Pastors that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as maliciously of me as your blind zeal to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I do believe the Gospel of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted Books of Canonical Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I believe it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be Divine Revelation And yet in this I do not depend upon any Succession of men that have always believed it without any mixture of Error nay I am fully persuaded there hath been no such Succession and yet do not find my self any way weakned in my Faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your Devils at Lowden do tricks against it but though an Angel from Heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I persuade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so Hypersceptical as to persuade me that I am not sure that I believe all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you believe the Church of Rome For if a man may persuade himself he doth believe what he doth not believe then may you think you believe the Church of Rome and yet not believe it But if no man can Err concerning what he believes then you must give me leave to assure my self that I do believe and consequently that any man may believe the aforesaid truths upon the aforesaid motives without any dependence upon any Succession that hath believed it always And as from your definition of Faith so from your definition of Heresie this fancy may be refuted For questionless no man can be an Heretick but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Error therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretick whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetual Succession of Believers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in your power therefore our being or not being Hereticks depends not on it Besides what is more certain than that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the World had made any before and why then may not he that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God and the Rule of Faith regulate his Faith by it and consequently believe aright without much regarding what other men either will do or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his Words believed he by his Providence must take order that either by Succession of men or by some other means natural or supernatural it be preserved and delivered and sufficiently notified to be his Word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no Error against it certainly there is no more necessity than that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sin against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgress it certainly they may also preserve directions for their Faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barr do find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined oftimes make against themselves This they do ignorantly it being in their power to suppress or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formally alleged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetual Succession of men Orthodox in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Heretical 39. When therefore you have produced some proof of this which was your Major in your former Syllogism That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresie you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality or whether it be a Creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a Word whether our Bishops and Priests have
it not as well as yours and whether some mens persuasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more than a mans persuasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to have taken it if he has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by a just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some mark upon Hereticks that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferred on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Popes right or an Usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiastical And if by Ecclesiastical only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to lose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to lose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it until good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present Government established be as unlawful to go about to restore it whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schism a man may not withdraw obedience from an Usurped Authority commanding unlawful things Whether the Roman Church might not give Authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her Errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Judge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Trajan gave his Sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he Governed well he should use it for him if ill against Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to Preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her Errors in Doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not Authority to Preach the whole Gospel of Christ and consequently against her Doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospel of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the Church of Rome for any Lay-man or Woman that has ability to persuade others by Word or by Writing from Error and unto truth And why this Liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other Commission or Vocation than that of a Christian to do a work of Charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without any unnecessary disturbance of order to persuade men out of a false unto a true way of Eternal happiness Especially the Apostle having assured us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the Error of his way shall save a Soul from Death and shall hide a multitude of Sins Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not Consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinals do the Pope whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the Government in their Hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonical exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Judah and the first Christian Emperors were of the Jewish and Christian Church be any new found Doctrine Whether it be not true that Bishops being made Bishops have their Authority immediately from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings Authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has Authority immediately from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the Authority of the Cardinals Whether you do well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more Authority in ordering the affairs of the Church than the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give Authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdom and yet not be capable of doing it himself as well as a Bishop may give Authority to a Physician to practice Physick in his Diocess which the Bishop cannot do himself Whether if Nero the Emperor would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to Preach the Gospel of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have questioned his Authority to do so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. JAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to do any thing that is lawful Whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispenced with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incur any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a Character and ours doth not Whether the power of Consecrating and Ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have Authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of Architecture and had it immediately by infusion from God himself yet if they were the Kings Subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortress for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himself yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his Subjects that has this power to ordain any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it do not follow that whensoever the King commands an House to be Built a Message to be delivered or a Murtherer to be Executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect Messenger or Executioner As well as that they are ipso facto Ordained and Consecrated who by the Kings Authority are commended to the Bishops to be Ordained and Consecrated Especially seeing the King
if you say so either you want Logick which is a certain sign of an ill disputer or are not pleased to use it which is a worse For speech is a certain sign of a living man yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead for he may be dumb and yet living still and we may have other evident tokens that he is so as Eating Drinking Breathing Moving So though the constant and Universal delivery of any Doctrine by the Apostolick Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great argument of the truth of it yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so lose this argument and yet not want others to justifie and support it self For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens Hearts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contained in Scripture in express terms or deducible from it by apparent consequence If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetual Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie you must not content your self to shew that having it is one sign of truth but you must shew it to be the only sign of it and inseparable from it But this if you be well advised you will never undertake First because it is an impossible attempt and then because if you do it you will marr all for by proving this an inseparable sign of Catholick Doctrine you will prove your own which apparently wants it in many points not to be Catholick For whereas you say this Succession requires two things agreement with the Apostles Doctrine and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it It will be proved against you that you fail in both points and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwaies as your condemning the Doctrine of the Chiliasts and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many Ages after For example In mutilation of the Communion in having your Service in such a Language as the Assistants generally understand not your offering to Saints your Picturing of God your worshiping of Pictures 42. Ad § 24. Obj. The true Church must have Universality of place which Protestants wanting cannot avoid the just note of Heresie Answ You have not set down clearly and univocally what you mean by it whether Universality of fact or of right and if of fact whether absolute or comparative and if comparative whether of the Church in comparison of any other Religion or only of Heretical Christians or if in comparison of these whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyned or in comparison only of any one of them Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Heresie For those places of S. Austin do not deserve the name And truly in my judgment you have done advisedly in proving it no better For as for Universality of right or a right to Universality all Religions claim it but only the true has it and which has it cannot be determined unless it first be determined which is the true An absolute Universality and diffusion through all the World if you should pretend to all the World would laugh at you If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion Mahumetism would carry the Victory from you If you should oppose your selves against all other Christians besides you it is certain you would be cast in this suit also If lastly being hard driven you should please your selves with being more than any one Sect of Christians it would presently be replied that it is uncertain whether now you are so but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so Then when the a Hierom. Cont. Luciferianos whole World wondered that it was become Arrian then when Athanasius opposed the World and the World Athanasius then when b In Theodoret. Hist 16. c. l. 2. your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of Error answered for himself There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong then when the Professors of Error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of the Heaven As c In ep 48. ad Vincentium S. Austin acknowledgeth then when d Commenitorii lib. 1. c. 4. Vincentius confesseth that the Poyson of the Arrians had contaminated not now some certain portion but almost the whole World then when the Author of Nazianzens Life testifies That d In vita Nazianz the Heresie of Arrius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the World and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out f In Orat. Arian pro seipso Where are they who reproach us with our poverty who define the Church by the multitude and despise the little flock They have the People but we the Faith And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes and Floods of Arrians that he was enforced to write a Treatise on purpose g Tom. 2. against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents So that if you had proved want of Univesality even thus restrained to be an infallible note of Heresie there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed that the time was when you were Hereticks And besides I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for Antichrist against he comes by which he may prove his Company the true Church For it is evident out of Scripture and confessed by you that though his time be not long his dominion shall be very large and that the true Church shall be then the woman driven into the wilderness 45. Ad § 25.26 You endeavor to prove that the Faith of Protestants is no Faith being destitute of its due qualifications Obj. First you say their belief wanteth certainty because they denying the Universal Infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed or testified by God Ans But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility upon what certain ground do you know that your Church is infallible Upon what certain ground do you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible As that there is a God that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God that those Texts of Scripture which you alledge for your infallibility are incorrupted that that which you
pretend is the true sense of them When you have produced certain grounds for all these things I doubt not but it will appear that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion which is nothing else but the Bible without dependence on the Churches infallibility Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present believes neither Church nor Scripture nor God but is ready and willing to believe them all if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds by which he may be converted or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46. Obj. The Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scripture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Ans But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proof of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonical Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other means to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible 47. Obj. But Protestants though they are perswaded their own opinions are true and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. Yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all Ans The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other do sometimes fail because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Jew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to relie in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turk might use the same argument against both Jews and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all reason Might not the one say Mens disagreement in Religion shews that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason do sometimes fail Do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeal against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your own but all Religion But God be thanked the answer is easie and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48. Obj. But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamental and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error Ans By like reason since you acknowledge that every error in points defined and declared by your Church destroys the substance of Faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of Faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation But though we cannot perhaps say in particular thus much and no more is fundamental yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental As he that in a receipt takes twenty ingredients whereof ten only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49. Ad § 29. Obj. It is generally delivered by Catholick Divines that he who erreth against any one revealed truth tâ—seth all Divine Faith Now certainly some Protestants must do so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Ans I pass by your weakness in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines Yet if the Authority of your Divines were even Canonical certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for true doctrin this position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine faith For they all require not your self excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publickly and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe But if the Reader will be at the pains he may see this vain fancy confuted out of one of the most rational and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Estius upon the third Book of the Sententes the 23. Distinct and the 13. Section beginning thus It is disputed whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our Faith and disbelieves others or perhaps some one there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe 50. But if Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph but I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagined that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies and souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same
Council of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I do not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechism of Heidelburg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherein they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The Bible The Bible I say The Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it 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 own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismatical presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe and hope impartial search of the true way to Eternal Happiness do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one Age against a Consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an Age after Christ or that in such an Age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will profess according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly lose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this Book and require whether I believe it or no and seem it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with Hand and Heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from me And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57. This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily persuaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely than if I had guided my self according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secured by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into Error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my Error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being as I have proved plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should fail of Salvation 58. Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that and much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been Ancient The Scripture is more Ancient Is your Church a means to keep men at Unity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and will obey it in Unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in Unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church Universal for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more Universal For all the Christians in the World those I mean that in truth deserve this name do now and always have believed the Scripture to be the Word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God and all Christians besides you deny it 59. Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confess that your selves are surer of the Truth of the Scripture than of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof 60. Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61. Fifthly to follow the Scripture I have Gods express warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no command at all much less an express command Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to do so in these Words call no man Master on Earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by Faith Be not high minded but fear The Spirit of truth The World cannot receive 62. Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been revealed reason could never have discovered but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it For reason will convince any man unless he be of a perverse mind that the Scripture is the Word of God And then no reason can be greater than this God says so therefore it is true 63. Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture than the infallibility of your Church appears to be confirmed by it and consequently must be so
foolish as to believe your Church exempted from Error upon less evidence rather than subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence Now if I take the Scripture only for my Guide I shall not need to do any thing so unreasonable 64. If I will follow your Church I must believe impossibilities and that with an absolute certainty upon motives which are confessed to be but only Prudential and probable That is with a weak Foundation I must firmly support a heavy a monstrous heavy building Now following the Scripture I shall have no necessity to undergo any such difficulties 65. Following your Church I must be servant of Christ and a Subject of the King but only Ad placitum Papae I must be prepared in mind to renounce my allegiance to the King when the Pope shall declare him an Heretick and command me not to obey him And I must be prepared in mind to esteem Vertue Vice and Vice Vertue if the Pope shall so determine Indeed you say it is impossible he should do the latter but that you know is a great question neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King should depend upon a questionable Foundation And howsoever you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the Popes commands should be contrary to the law of Christ that they of your Religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the Pope than the law of Christ Whereas if I follow the Scripture I may nay I must obey my Sovereign in lawful things though an Heretick though a Tyrant and though I do not say the Pope but the Apostles themselves nay an Angel from Heaven should teach any thing against the Gospel of Christ I may nay I must denounce Anathema to him 66. Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion which being contrary to Flesh and Blood without any assistance from worldly power wit or policy nay against all the power and policy of the World prevailed and enlarged it self in a very short time all the World over Whereas it is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintains her authority over mens Consciences by counterfeiting false miracles forging false stories by obtruding on the World suppositious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by Wars by persecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of Carnal means whether violent or fraudulent 67. Following the Scripture I shall believe a Religion the first Preachers of Professors whereof it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the World that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this World but rather were to expect the contrary even all the miseries which the World could lay upon them On the other side the Head of your Church the pretended Successor of the Apostles and Guide of Faith it is even palpable that he makes your Religion the instrument of his ambition and by it seeks to entitle himself directly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the World And besides it is evident to any man that has but half an eye that most of those Doctrines which you add to the Scripture do make one way or other for the honour or temporal profit of the Teachers of them 68. Following the Scripture only I shall embrace a Religion of admirable simplicity consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of God in Spirit and Truth Whereas your Church and Doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak childish ridiculous unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies and full of that righteousness for which Christ shall Judge the World 69. Following the Scripture I shall believe that which Universal never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernatural Work of God confirmed to be the Word of God whereas never any miracle was wrought never so much as a lame Horse cured in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility And if any strange things have been done which may seem to give attestation to some parts of your Doctrine yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture which foretold that Gods providence permitting it and the wickedness of the World deserving it strange signs and wonders should be wrought to confirm false Doctrine that they which love not the Truth may be given over to strange delusions Neither does it seem to me any strange thing that God should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the World 70. If I follow the Scripture I must not promise my self Salvation without effectual dereliction and mortification of all Vices and the effectual Practice of all Christian Vertues But your Church opens an easier and a broader way to Heaven and though I continue all my life long in a course of sin and without the Practice of any Vertue yet gives me assurance that I may be let into Heaven at a Postern-gate even by any Act of Attrition at the hour of Death if it be joyned with confession or by an Act of Contrition without confession 71. Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility of innocence and patience of liberality frugality temperance sobriety justice meekness fortitude constancy and gravity contempt of the World love of God and the love of mankind In a Word of all Vertues and against all vice which the Scriptures impose upon us to be obeyed under pain of damnation The sum whereof is in manner comprised in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount recorded in the 5 6 and 7. of S. Matthew which if they were generally obeyed could not but make the world generally happy and the goodness of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this Religion rather than any other came from God the fountain of all goodness And that they may be generally obeyed our Saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his Sermon with these universal Sanctions Not every one that saith Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven and again whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not shall be likned unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand and the rain descended and the flood came and the winds blew and it fell and great was the fall thereof Now your Church notwithstanding all this enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts teaching men that they are not Laws for all Christians but Counsels of perfection and matters of Supererrogation that a man shall do well if he do observe them but he shall not sin if he observe them not that they are for them who aim at high places in heaven who aspire with the two sons of Zebede to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ But if a man will be content
yet our own Brethren the Century writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian private Confession even of thoughts was used and that it was then commanded and thought necessary and then our Ordination you say is very doubtful and all that depends upon it Answer I also omit to answer 1. That your Brother Rhenanus acknowledges the contrary and assures us that the Confession then required and in use was publick and before the Church and that your auricular Confession was not then in the World for which his Mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorius 2. That your Brother Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them and the giving it shews no less and now I would know whether you will acknowledg your Church bound to give it and to esteem so of it 3. That it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary and yet be but a Church Constitution Neither will I deny if the present Church could and would so order it that the abuses of it might be prevented and conceiving it profitable should enjoyn the use of it but that being commanded it would be necessary 4. Concerning our Ordinations besides that I have proved it impossible that they should be so doubtful as yours according to your own principles I answer that experience shews them certainly sufficient to bring men to Faith and Repentance and consequently to Salvation and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary which we cannot help God will certainly supply it 19. It is remarkable against what you say § 7. That any small Error in Faith destroys all Faith that S. Austin whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some Error in Faith and yet not to have no Faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatist Ep. 48. in Baptism in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast Faith prove to me likewise that thou hast Charity Lib. 5. prope initium Parallel to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiastical conversation common lessons the same Faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgments of these Fathers even the Donatists though Hereticks and Schismaticks gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramental Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Unction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteemed Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remained with them entire for so he says in express terms in his Book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20. Ad § 8. Obj. You say there is un inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unless yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the terms but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some Ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many Ages For neither do you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is Univocal that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages any more than the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your Book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence over-watching and over-ruling it may preserve the means of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the Authority of the word of God with men Thus the Jews preserve means to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church do as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talk vainly as if you were the only men in the World before Luther yet the World knows that this is but talk and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant Salvation to it unless by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusual Synechdoche 21. Whereas you say that Catholicks never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himself granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their Error were not Hereticks and therefore notwithstanding their Error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists Therefore the Argument of the Donatists is as good as that of the Papists against Protestants For the Donatists argued thus speaking to the Catholicks Your selves confess our Baptism Sacraments and Faith good and available We deny yours to be so and say there is no Church no Salvation amongst you Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us 22. S. Austins words are cont lit petil l. 2. c. 108. Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam populi aufugite Traditores Cont. lit Petil l. 2. c. 108. si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church ye People and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damned for that ye may know that they being guilty esteem well of our Faith behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have Baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholicks from salvation absolutely And whereas you say the Catholicks never yielded that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation I say it appears by what I have alledged out of S. Austin that they
good works they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good works They know what salvation is as well as you and you have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternal reward without good works and why then may not this Doctrin be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works 31. You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are justified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Justification Remission of sins and to Remission of sins they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good work being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectual conversion from all sin to all holiness But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sins past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good work and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sins and Remission of sins to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good work 32. Obj. You say They believe themselves justified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves justified Answ Some peradventure do so but withal they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience is to be esteemed not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justificafication that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet it is required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the Doctrin of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrin of Liberty not a Doctrin that turns hope into presumption and carnal security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halves have made this wicked use of it For my part I do heartily wish that by publick Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever Preach or Print this Doctrin that Faith alone justifies unless he joyns this together with it that universal obedience is necessary to salvation And besides 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 when the thirteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33. Obj. Whereas you say that some Protestants do expresly affirm the former point to be the soul of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theological vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Answer They have great reason to believe the Doctrin of Justification by faith only a point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousness which if it be imperfect will not justifie but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear If this Doctrin be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may do truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine Truths That he must make his calling certain by good works That he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firm and a more unshaken assent than he does that himself is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himself justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity to do either would not rather forgo his belief of these Doctrins than the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the express words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrins doth very well qualifie their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them do sufficiently testifie are more effectual to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of Gods favor built upon the conscience of his love and fear than the latter can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyned with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each ether with the strict embraces of love and Communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to prescribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgment of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God than a true judgment if it be uncharitable and therefore shall always chuse if we do err to err on the milder and more merciful part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected than eject those that deserve to be retained 34. Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Justification you must needs infer that they want unity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamental I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you infer it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Policrates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian inasmuch as it is undeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrin as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point
be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the soul of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soul yet all of them had souls and souls of the same nature Or as those Physicians who dispute whether the brain or heart be the principal part of a man yet all of them have brains and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteem that Doctrin the soul of the Church which others do not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soul of the Church may be in both sorts of them and though one account that a necessary truth which others account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those Truths which are truly and really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophistical than this They differ in some points which they esteem necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so 35. Now as concerning the other inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamental I have said and proved formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamental They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamental and are at sufficient Unity in matters of Faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamental and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vain or perhaps hurtful opinions for necessary and fundamental Truths Cap. 3. §. 53. alibt Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants do not agree for you over-reach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamental so neither do you agree what points are defined and so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended Authority of defining some of you setling it in the Pope himself though alone without a Council Others in a Council though divided from the Pope Others only in the conjunction of Council and Pope Others not in this neither but in the acceptation of the present Church Universal Lastly others not attributing it to this neither but only to the perpetual Succession of the Church of all Ages of which divided Company it is very evident and undeniable that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defined and therefore necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to do nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation FINIS OUT OF Mr. Chillingworth's Manuscript A LETTER TO Mr. LEWGAR CONCERNING THE Church of Romes Being the Guide of Faith and Judge of Controversies Good Mr. LEWGAR THough I am resolved not to be much afflicted for the loss of that which is not in my power to keep yet I cannot deny but the loss of a friend goes very near unto my heart and by this name of a friend I did presume till of late that I might have called you because though perhaps for want of power and opportunity I have done you no good office yet I have been always willing and ready to do you the best service I could and therefore I cannot but admire at that affected strangeness which in your last Letter to me you seem to take upon you renouncing in a manner all relation to me and tacitly excommunicating me from all interest in you the Superscription of your Letter is to Mr. William Chillingworth and your Subscription John Lewgar as if you either disdained or made a conscience of stiling me your friend or your self mine If this proceed from passion and weakness I pray mend it if from reason I pray shew it If you think me one of those to whom Saint John forbids you to say God save you then you are to think and prove me one of those Deceivers which deny Christ Jesus to be come in the flesh If you think me an Heretick and therefore to be avoided you must prove me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by my own judgment which I know I cannot and therefore I think you cannot If you say I do not hear the Church and therefore am to be esteemed an Heathen or Publican you are to prove that by the Church there is meant the Church of Rome and yet when you have done so I hope Christians are not forbidden to shew humanity and civility even to Pagans for Gods sake Mr. Lewgar free your self from this blind zeal at least for a little space and consider with reason and moderation what strange crime you can charge me with that should deferve this strange usage especially from you Is it a crime to endeavour with all my understanding to find your Religion true and to make my self a believer of it and not be able to do so Is it a crime to imploy all my reason upon the justification of the Infallibility of the Roman Church and to find it impossible to be justified I will call God to witness who knows my heart better than you do that I have evened the scale of my judgment as much as possibly I could and have not willingly allowed any one grain of worldly motives on either side but have weighed the Reasons for your Religion and against with such indifference as if there were nothing in the world but God and my self and is it my fault that that scale goes down which hath the most weight in it that that building falls which has a false foundation have you such power over your understanding that you can believe what you please though you see no reason or that you can suspend your belief when you do see reason If you have I pray for our old friendships sake teach me that trick but until I have learnt it I pray blame me not for going the ordinary way I mean for believing or not believing as I see reason If you can convince me of wilful opposition against the known truth of negligence in seeking it of unwillingness to find it of preferring temporal respects before it or of any other fault which is in my power to amend that is indeed a fault if I amend it not be as angry with me as you please But to impute to me involuntary errors or that I do not see that which I would see but cannot or that I will not profess that which I do not believe certainly this is far more unreasonable error than any which you can justly charge me with for let me tell you the imputing Socinianism to me whosoever was the author of it was a wicked and groundless slander Perhaps you will say for this is the usual song on that side that pride is a voluntary fault and with this I am justly
over all other Churches That the African Churches in S. Austins time should be ignorant that the Pope was Head of the Church and Judge of Appeals jure divino and that there was a necessity of Conformity with the Church in this and all other points of Doctrin Nay that the Popes themselves should be so ignorant of the true ground of this their Authority as to pretend to it not upon Scripture or universal Tradition but upon an imaginary pretended none-such Canon of the Council of Nice That Vincentius Lirinensis seeking for a guide of his Faith and a preservative from Heresie should be ignorant of this so ready one The Infallibility of the Church of Rome All these things and many more are very strange to me if the Infallibility of the Roman Church be indeed and were always by Christians acknowledged the foundation of our Faith And therefore I beseech you pardon me if I choose to build mine upon one that is much firmer and safer and lies open to none of these objections which is Scripture and universal Tradition and if one that is of this Faith may have leave to do so I will subscribe with hand and heart Your very loving and true Friend W. C. A TABLE OF Contents Note that the first Figure refers to the Chapter the other to the divisions of each Chapter A. PRotestants agree in more things than they differ in by believing the Scripture chap. 4. div 49.50 We have as many rational means of Agreement as the Papists c. 3.7 8. Papists pretend to means of agreement and do not agree c. 3.3 4 5 6. Not necessary to find a Church agreeing with Protestants in all points Ans pref 19. c. 5.27 Antiquity vainly pleaded for Romish Doctrins and Practices since many Errors are more ancient than some of their Doctrins c. 5.91 The Apostolick Church an Infallible Guide to which we may resort being present to us by her Writings c. 3.69 80. That the Church has power to make new Articles of Faith asserted by the Romish Doctors c. 4.18 This one Article I believe the Roman Catholick Church to be Infallible if their Doctrin were true would secure against heresie more than the whole Creed c. 4.77 78 79 83. Christs assistance promised to the Church to lead her into more than necessary truths c. 5.61 62. Atheism and irreligion springs easily from some Romish Doctrins and Practices Pref. 7 8. S. Austins saying Evangelio non crederem c. how to be understood c. 2.54 97 98 99. S. Austins Testimony against the Donatists not cogent against Protestants c. 2.163 S. Austins words No necessity to divide unity explained c. 5.10 The Authors vindication from suspition of Heresiâ— Pref. 28. The Authors motives to turn a Papist with answerâ— to them Pref. 42.43 B. The Bible which is the Religion of Protestants to be preferred before the way of Romish Religion shewed at large c. 6. from 56. to 72. Inclusive C. The Calvinists rigid Doctrin of Predetermination unjustly reproached by Papists who communicate with those that hold the same c. 7.30 To give a Catalogue of our Fundamentals not necessary nor possible Ans Pref. 27. c. 3.13 53. Want of such a Catalogue leaves us not uncertain in our Faith c. 3.14 Papists as much bound to give a Catalogue of the Churches proposals which are their Fundamentals and yet do it not c. 3.53 Our general Catalogue of Fundamentals as good as theirs c. 4.12 c. 7.35 Moral certainty a sufficient Foundation of Faith c. 2.154 A Protestant may have certainty though disagreeing Protestants all pretend to like certainty c. 7.13 What Charity Papists allow to us Protestants and we to them c. 1.1 3 4 5. A Charitable judgment should be made of such as err but lead good lives c. 7.33 Protestant Charity to Ignorant Papists no comfort to them that will not see their errors c. 5.76 The Church how furnished with means to determin Controversies c. 1.7 11. Commands in Scripture to hear the Church and obey it suppose it not infallible c. 3.41 We may be a true Church though deriving Ordination and receiving Scripture from a false one c. 6.54 Common truths believed may preserve them good that otherwise err c. 7.33 Conscience in some cases will justifie separation though every pretence of it will not c. 5.108 Concord in damned errors worse than disagreement in controverted points c. 5.72 The Consequences of mens Opinions may be unjustly charged upon them c. 1.12 c. 7.30 What Contradictions Papists believe who hold Transubstantiation c. 4.46 All Controversies in Religion not necessary to be determined c. 1.7 156. c. 3.88 How Controversies about Scripture it self are to be decided c. 2.27 Controversies not necessary to be decided by a Judicial sentence without any appeal c. 2.85 That the Creed contains all necessary points and how to be understood c. 4.23 73 74. Not necessary that our Creed should be larger than that of the Apostles c. 4.67 70 71 72. Whether it be contrary to the Creed to say the Church may fail c. 5.31 D. S Dennis of Alexandria's saying explained about not dividing the Church c. 5.12 To deny a Truth witnessed by God whether always damnable Ans Pref. 9. The Apostles depositing Truth with the Church no argument that she should always keep it sincere and intire c. 2.148 Of Disagreeing Protestants though one side must err yet both may hope for salvation Ans Pref. 22. c. 1.10 13 17. Two may disagree in a matter of faith and yet neither be chargeable with denying a declared Truth of Gods Ans Pref. 10. Differences among Protestants vainly objected against them c. 3.2 3 5. c. 5.72 No reason to reproach them for their differences about necessary Truths and damuable Errors c. 3.52 What is requisite to convince a man that a Doctrin comes from God Ans Pref. 8. Believing the Doctrin of Scripture a man may be saved though he did not believe it to be the word of God c. 2.159 The Donatists error about the Catholick Church what it was and was not c. 3.64 The Donatists case and ours not alike c. 5.103 The Roman Church guilty of the Donatists Error in perswading men as good not to be Christians as not Roman Catholicks c. 3.64 Papists liker to the Donatists than we by their uncharitable denying salvation out of their Church c. 7.21 22 27. E. English Divines vindicated from inclining to Popery and for want of skill in School-Divinity Pref. 19. How Errors may be damnable Ans Pref. 22. In what case Errors damnable may not damn those that hold them c. 5.58 c. 6.14 In what case Errors not damnable may be damnable to those that hold them c. 5.66 No man to be reproached for quitting his Errors c. 5.103 Though we may pardon the Roman Church for her Errors yet we may not sin with it c. 5.70 Errors of the Roman Church that endanger salvation to be forsaken though they are not destructive of it c. 7.6
Argument drawn from Communicating of Infants as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility p. 68. V. An Argument against Infallibility drawn from the Doctrin of the Millenaries p. 80. VI. A Letter relating to the same subject p. 89. VII An Argument against the Roman Churches Infallibility taken from the Contradictions in their Doctrin of Transubstantiation p. 91. VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto p. 94. IX A Discourse concerning Tradition p. 103. The Reader is desired to take notice of a great mistake of the Printer and to Correct it That he has made this the running Title over most of the Additional Pieces viz. A Conference betwixt Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar which should only have been set over the first there are also some literal mistakes as pag. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such like not to be imputed to the Author A CONFERENCE BETWIXT Mr. CHILLINGWORTH AND Mr. LEWGAR Thesis THE Church of Rome taken diffusively for all Christians communicating with the Bishop of Rome was the Judge of Controversies at that time when the Church of England made an alteration in her Tenents Argu. She was the Judge of Controversies at that time which had an Authority of deciding them But the Church of Rome at that time had the Authority of deciding them Ergo. Answ A limited Authority to decide Controversies according to the Rule of Scripture and Universal Tradition and to oblige her own Members so long as she evidently contradicted not that Rule to obedience I grant she had but an unlimited an infallible Authority or such as could not but proceed according to that Rule and such as should bind all the Churches in the World to Obedience as the Greek Church I say she had not Quest When your Church hath decided a Controversie I desire to know whether any particular Church or person hath Authority to reexamine her decision whether she hath observed her Rule or no and free himself from the obedience of it by his or her particular judgment Answ If you understand by your Church the Church Catholick probably I should answer no but if you understand by your Church that only which is in Subordination to the See of Rome or if you understand a Council of this Church I answer yea Arg. That was the Catholick Church which did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity But the Church of Rome at that time was the only Church that did abide in the Root of Apostolick Unity Ergo. Quest What mean you by Apostolick Unity Answ I mean the Unity of that Fellowship wherein the Apostles Lived and Died. Quest Wherein was this Unity Answ Herein it consisted that they all professed one Faith obeyed one Supream Tribunal and communicated together in the same Prayers and Sacraments Solut. Then the Church of Rome continued not in this Apostolick Unity for it continued not in the same Faith wherein the Apostles Lived and Died for though it retained so much in my judgment as was essential to the being of a Church yet it degenerated from the Church of the Apostles times in many things which were very profitable as in Latin Service and Communion in one kind Argu. Some Church did continue in the same Faith wherein the Apostles lived and died But there was no Church at that time which did continue in the Apostles Faith besides the Roman Church Ergo. Answ That some Church did continue in the Apostles Faith in all things necessary I grant it that any did continue in the Integrity of it and in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable I deny it Quest Is it not necessary to a Churches continuing in the Apostles Faith that she continue in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable Answ A perfect conformity in all things is necessary to a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith but to an imperfect continuance an imperfect conformity is sufficient and such I grant the Roman Church had Quest Is not a perfect continuance in the Apostles Faith necessary to a Churches continuance in Apostolick Unity Asw It is necessary to a perfect continuance in Apostolick Unity Argu. There was some one company of Christians at the time of Luthers rising which was the Catholick Church But there was no other company at that time besides the Roman Ergo the Roman at that time was the Catholick Church Answ There was no one company of Christians which in opposition to and Exclusion of all other companies of Christians was the Catholick Church Argu. If the Catholick Church be some one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies then if there was some one company she was one in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies But the Catholick Church is one company of Christians in opposition to and exclusion of c. Ergo There was then some one company which was the Catholick Church in opposition to and exclusion of all other companies The Minor proved by the Testimonies of the Fathers both Greek and Latin testifying that they understood the Church to be one in the sense alledged 1. If this Unity which cannot be separated at all or divided is also among Hereticks what contend we farther Why call we them Hereticks S. Cypr. Epist 75. 2. But if there be but one Flock how can he be accounted of the Flock which is not within the number of it Id Ibid. 3. When Parmenian commends one Church he condemns all the rest for besides one which is the true Catholick other Churches are esteemed to be among Hereticks but are not S. Optat. lib. 1. 4. The Church therefore is but one this cannot be among all Hereticks and Schismaticks Ibid. 5. You say you offer for the Church which is one this very thing is part of a lie to call it one which you have divided into two Id Ibid. 6. The Church is one which cannot be amongst us and amongst you it remains then that it be in one only place Id Ibid. 7. Although there be many Heresies of Christians and that all would be called Catholicks yet there is always one Church c. S. August de util credend c. 7. 8. The question between us is where the Church is whether with us or with them for she is but one Id de unitat c. 2. 9. The proofs of the Catholick prevailed whereby they evicted the Body of Christ to be with them and by consequence not to be with the Donatists for it is manifest that she is one alone Id. Collat. Carthag lib. 3. 10. In illud cantic 6.7 There are 60 Queens and 80 Concubines and Damosels without number but my Dove is one c. He said not my Queens are 60 and my Concubines c. but he said my Dove is but one because all the Sects of
Philosophers and Heresies of Christians are none of his his is but one to wit the Catholick Church c. S. Epiphan in fine Panar 11. A man may not call the Conventicles of Hereticks I mean Marcionites Manichees and the rest Churches therefore the Tradition appoints you to say I believe one Holy Catholick Church c. S. Cyrill Catech. 18. And these Testimonies I think are sufficient to shew the judgment of the Ancient Church that this Title of the Church one is directly and properly exclusive to all companies besides one to wit that where there are diverse professions of Faith or diverse Communions there is but one of these which can be the Catholick Church Upon this ground I desire some company of Christians to be named professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Roman which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and if no other in this sense can be named than was she the Catholick Church at that time and therefore her judgment to be rested in and her Communion to be embraced upon peril of Schism and Heresie Mr. Chillingworths Answer Upon the same ground if you pleased you might desire a Protestant to name some Company of Christians professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Greek Church which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and seeing he could name no other in this sense concludes that the Greek Church was the Catholick Church at that time Upon the very same ground you might have concluded for the Church of the Abyssines or Armenians or any other society of Christians extant before Luthers time And seeing this is so thus I argue against your ground 1. That ground which concludes indifferently for both parts of a contradiction must needs be false and deceitful and conclude for neither part But this ground concludes indifferently both parts of a contradiction viz. That the Greek Church is the Catholick Church and not the Roman as well as That the Roman is the Catholick Church and not the Greek Therefore the ground is false and deceitful seem it never so plausible 2. I answer Secondly that you should have taken notice of my Answer which I then gave you which was that your major as you then framed your Argument but as now your minor is not always true if by one you understand one in external Communion seeing nothing hindred in my Judgment but that one Church excommunicated by another upon an insufficient cause might yet remain a true member of the Catholick Church and that Church which upon the overvaluing this cause doth excommunicate the other though in fault may yet remain a member of the Catholick Church which is evident from the difference about Easter-day between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Asia for which vain matter Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Asia And yet I believe you will not say that either the Church excommunicating or the Church excommunicated ceased to be a true member of the Church Catholick The case is the same between the Greek and the Roman Church for though the difference between them be greater yet it is not so great as to be a sufficient ground of excommunication and therefore the excommunication was causeless and consequently Brutum fulmen and not ratified or confirmed by God in Heaven and therefore the Church of Greece at Luthers rising might be and was a true member of the Catholick Church As concerning the places of Fathers which you alledge I demand 1. If I can produce you an equal or greater number of Fathers or more ancient than these not contradicted by any that lived with them or before them for some doctrin condemned by the Roman Church whether you will subscribe it If not with what face or conscience can you make use of and build your whole Faith upon the Authority of Fathers in some things and reject the same authority in others 2. Secondly because you urge S. Cyprians Authority I desire you to tell me whether this Argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the Judgement of the Roman Church or no If not how should it come to pass that it should serve now and not then fit this time and not that as if it were like an Almanack that would not serve for all Meridians If it would why was it not urged by others upon S. Cyprian or represented by S. Cyprian to himself for his direction when he differed from the Roman Church and all other that herein conformed unto her touching the point of Re-baptizing Hereticks which the Roman Church held unlawful and damnable S. Cyprian not only lawful but necessary so well did he rest in the Judgment of that Church Quid verba audiam cùm facta videam says he in the Comedy And Cardinal Perron tells you in his Epistle to Casaubon that nothing is more unreasonable than to draw consequences from the words of Fathers against their lively and actual practice The same may be said in refutation of the places out of S. Austin who was so far from concluding from them or any other a necessity of resting in the Judgment of the Roman Church that he himself as your Authors testifie lived and died in opposition of it even in that main fundamental point upon which Mr. Lewgar hath built the necessity of his departure from the Church of England and embracing the Communion of the Roman Church that is The Supream Authority of that Church over other Churches and the power of receiving Appeals from them Mr. Lewgar I know cannot be ignorant of these things and therefore I wonder with what conscience he can produce their words against us whose Actions are for us If it be said that S. Cyprian and S. Austin were Schismaticks for doing so it seems then Schismaticks may not only be members of the Church against Mr. Lewgars main conclusion but Canoniz'd Saints of it or else S. Austin and S. Cyprian should be rased out of the Roman Kalendar If it be said that the point of Re-baptization was not defined in S. Cyprians time I say that in the Judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome and their adherents it was For they urged it as an Original and Apostolick Tradition and consequently at least of as great force as any Church definition They excommunicated Firmilianus and condemned S. Cyprian as a false Christ and a false Apostle for holding the contrary and urged him Tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs as he himself clearly intimates If it be said they differed only from the particular Church of Rome and not from the Roman Church taking it for the universal society of Christians in Communion with that Church I Answer 1. They know no such sense of the word I am sure never used it in any such which whether it had been possible if the Church of Rome had been in their judgment to other Churches in
trouble you took the next Boat and went to the Church of Rome because that bespake you first You impute to me as I hear that the way I take is destructive only and that I build nothing which first is not a fault for Christian Religion is not now to be built but only I desire to have the rubbish and impertinent Lumber taken off which you have laid upon it which hides the glorious simplicity of it from them which otherwise would embrace it Remember I pray Averroes his saying Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis and consider the swarms of Atheists in Italy and then tell me whether your unreasonable and contradictious Doctrines your forged Miracles and counterfeit Legends have not in all probability produced this effect Secondly if it be a fault it is certainly your own for your discourse intended for the proof of a positive conclusion That we must be Papists proves in deed and in truth nothing but even in shew and appearance no more but this Negative that we must not be Protestants but what we must be if we must not be Protestants God knows you in this Discourse I am sure do not shew it Mr. Lewgars Reply § 1. The minor of Mr. Chillingworths Argument against my ground is very weak being framed upon a false supposition that a Protestant could name no other Church professing a diverse Faith c. from the Greek Church which was the Catholick Church for if he could not indeed name any other the title would remain to the Greek Church But he hath the Roman to name and so my ground cannot conclude either for the Greek or Abyssine or any other besides the Roman but for that it does except he can name some other § 2. His second answer is weak likewise for my Minor is always true at least they thought it to be so whose Authorities I produce in confirmation of it as will appear to any one that considers them well how their force lies in Thesi not in Hypothesi not that the Church was not then divided into more Societies than one but that she could never be § 3. As for his Instance to the contrary wherein he believes I will not say the Churches excommunicated by Victor ceased to be a true member of the Catholick If I say so I say no more than the Ancient Fathers said before me Iraeneus when he desired Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to cut off so many and great Churches and Ruffinus reprehendit eam quod non benè fecisset abscindere ab unitate corporis c. § 4. But howsoever the case of Excommunication may be the division of external Communion which I intended and the Fathers spake of in the alledged Authorities was that which was made by voluntary separation § 5. Whereby the Church before one Society is divided into several distinct Societies both claiming to be the Church of which Societies so divided but one can be the Catholick and this is proved by the Authorities alledged which Authorities must not be answered by disproving them as he does for that is to change his Adversary and confute the Fathers sayings instead of mine but by shewing their true sense or judgment to be otherwise than I alledged it § 6. To his demand upon the places alledged I Answer that I do not build my whole faith of this conclusion upon the Authority of those Fathers for I produce them not for the Authority of the thing but of the Exposition The thing it self is an Article of the Creed Unam Catholicam grounded in express Scripture Columba mea unica but because there is difference in understanding this Prophesie I produce these Authorities to shew the Judgment of the Ancient Church how they understood it and the proper answer to this is either to shew that these words were not there or at least not this meaning and so to shew their meaning out of other places more pregnant § 7. And I promise that whensoever an equal consent of Fathers can be shewed for any thing as I can shew for this I will believe it as firmly as I do this § 8. But this is not the Answerers part to propound doubts and difficulties but to satisfie the proof objected § 9. And if this course be any more taken I will save my self all farther labour in a business so likely to be endless § 10. His second Answer to the places is wholly impertinent for therein would he disprove them from watching a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman Church whereas I produced them only to shew that among several Societies of Christians only one can be the Catholick and against this his second Answer saith nothing § 11. In his third Answer he makes some shew of reply to the Authorities themselves but he commits a double Error One that he imposes upon me a wrong conclusion to be proved as will appear by comparing my conclusion in my Paper with the conclusion he would appoint me § 12. Another that he imposes upon the Authorities a wrong Interpretation no way grounded in the words themselves nor in the places whence they were taken nor in any other places of the same Fathers but meerly forged out of his own Brain For first the places do not only say that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no part of the Church but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one and they account Societies divided which are either of a diverse Faith or a diverse Communion Neither do they define Hereticks or Schismaticks in that manner as he does § 13. For an Heretick in their Language is he that opposes partinaciously the Common Faith of the Church and a Schismatick he that separates from the Catholick Communion never making any mention at all of the cause § 14. And if his definition of a Schismatick may stand then certainly there was no Schismatick ever in the World nor none are at this day for none did none does separate without some pretence of Error or unlawfulness in the Conditions of the Churches Communion § 15. And so I expect both a fuller and directer answer to my Argument without excursions or diversions into any other matter till the judgment of Antiquity be cleared in this point Mr. Chillingworths Answer Ad § 1. The Minor of my Argument you say is very weak being grounded upon a false Supposition That a Protestant could name no other Church professing a diverse Faith from the Greek which was the Catholick Church And your reason is because he might name the Roman But in earnest Mr. Lewgar do you think that a Protestant remaining a Protestant can esteem the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church or do you think to put tricks upon us with taking your proposition one while in sensu composito another while in sensu diviso For if your meaning was that a Protestant not remaining but ceasing to be a
of it Occasionem quaerit qui cupit discedere Ad § 10. I pray tell me Is not Therefore a note of an Illation or a conclusion And is not your last therefore this Therefore her judgment is to be rested in which though it be not your first conclusion yet yours it is and you may not declaim it and it is so near of kin to the former in your judgment I am sure that they must stand or fall together therefore he that speaks pertinently for the disproving of the one cannot speak impertinently towards the disproving the other and therefore you cannot so shift it off but of necessity you must answer the Argument there urged or confess it ingenuously to be unanswerable Or if you will not answer any thing where the contradiction of your first conclusion is not in terms inferred then take it thus If S. Cyprian and S. Austin did not think it necessary in matters of Faith to rest in the judgment of the Roman Church and the adherents of it Then either they thought not the Catholick Churches judgment necessary to be rested on or they thought not that the Catholick Church But the Antecedent is true and undeniably proved so by their Actions and the consequence Evident Therefore the consequent must be true in one or other part But you will not say the former is true it remains therefore the latter must be and that is That S. Austin and S. Cyprian did not think the Church of Rome and the adherents of it to be the Catholick Church Ad § 11. But I tell you now and have already told you that in our discourse before Mr. Skinner and Dr. Sheldon I answered your Major as then you framed your Argument as now your Minor thus If you understand by one company of Christians one in External Communion I deny your Major For I say that two several Societies of Christians which do not externally communicate together may be both parts of the same Catholick Church and what difference there is between this and the conclusion I told you you should have proved I do not well unstand Ad § 12. And is it possible you should say so when every one of the places carry this sense in their forehead and 7 of the 11 in terms express it That they intended only to exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from being parts of the Church For if they did not against whom did they intend them Pagans lay no claim to the Church therefore not against them Catholicks they did not intend to exclude I know not who remains besides but Hereticks and Schismaticks Besides the frequent opposition in them between One Church on the one side and Hereticks and Schismaticks who sees not that in these places they intended to exclude only these pretenders out of the Churches Unity Lastly whereas you say that the places say That the Church cannot be divided and that they account those divided who are of a diverse Faith or a diverse Communion I tell you that I have read them over and over and unless my Eyes deceive they say not one word of a diverse Communion Ad § 13. Whereas a Heretick in your Language is he that opposeth pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church In mine He is such a one as holds an Error against Faith with Obstinacy Verily a monstrous difference between these definitions To oppose and hold against I hope are all one Faith and the common Faith of the Church sure are not very different pertinaciously and with Obstinacy methinks might pass for Synonimous and seeing the parts agree so well methinks the Total should not be at great hostility And for the definition of a Schismatick if you like not mine which yet I give you out of a Father I pray take your own and then shew me if you mean to do any thing that wheresoever there are two Societies of Christians differing in external Communion one of them most be of necessity either Heretical or Schismatical in your own sense of these words To the contrary I have said already and say it now again that you may not forget it the Roman and the Asian Churches in Victors time the Roman and the African in S. Stephens time differed in external Communion and yet neither of them was Heretical For they did not oppose pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church Neither of them was Schismatical for they did not separate never making mention of the cause at all but were separated by the Roman Church and that upon some cause though it were not sufficient Ad § 14. The Donatist did so as Facundus Hermianensis testifies but you are abused I believe with not distinguishing between these two They did pretend that the Church required of them some unlawful thing among the conditions of her Communion and they did pretend that it was unlawful for them to communicate with the Church This I confess they did pretend but it was in regard of some Persons in the Church with whom they thought it unlawful to communicate But the former they did not pretend I mean while they continued meer Schismaticks viz. That there was any Error in the Church or impiety in her publick service of God And this was my meaning in saying A Schismatick is he which separates from the Church without pretence of Error or unlawfulness in the conditions of her Communion Yet if I had left out the term unlawfulness the definition had been better and not obnoxious to this Cavillation and so I did in the second Paper which I sent you for your direction which if you had dealt candidly you should have taken notice of Ad § 15. I have replied as I think fully to every part and particle of your Argument Neither was the History of S. Cyprians and S. Austins opposition to the Church of Rome an excursion or diversion but a cleer demonstation of the contradictory of your conclusion viz. That the Roman Church c. and therefore her judgment not to be rested upon For an answer hereto I shall be very importunate with you and therefore if you desire to avoid trouble I pray come out of my debt as soon as may be If it be said that my Argument is not contradictory to your conclusion because it shews only that the Roman Church with her adherents was not in S. Cyprians or S. Austins time the Catholick Church but was at the time before Luther I say to conclude the one is to conclude the other For certainly if it were then at Luthers time so it was always so if it was not always it was not then for if it be of the essence or necessary to the Church as is pretended to be a Society of Christians joyned in Communion with the Church and Bishop of Rome then did it always agree to the Church and therefore in S. Cyprians and S. Austins time as well as at Luthers rising if it were not always particularly not in S. Cyprians time of the Essence or
effect of it in their lives and conversations in a word such as were betrayed to their Error and kept for ever in it either by negligence in seeking the Truth or unwillingness to find it or by some other voluntary sin And for these I dare not flatter them with hope of pardon but let me tell you it is not the error of the understanding but the sin of their will that truly and properly damns them But for the former I am confident that nothing is more contumelious to the goodness of God than to think that he will damn any such for he should damn men that truly love him and desire to serve him for doing that which all things considered was impossible for them not to do Obj. If it is said that pride of their own understanding made them not submit to the Church of Rome and to her guidance and that for this being a voluntary sin they may be justly damned Ans I answer that whether the Church of Rome be the guide of all men is the Question and therefore not to be begged but proved that the man we speak of is very willing to follow this Guide could he find any good ground to believe it is his Guide and therefore the reason he follows her not is not pride but ignorance that as it is humility to obey those whom God hath set over us so it is credulity to follow every one that will take upon him to lead us that if the blind lead the blind not only the leader but the follower shall perish Lastly that the present Church of Rome pretends very little and indeed nothing of moment to get the office of being Head and Guide of the Church which Antichrist when he cometh may not and will not make use of for the very same end and purpose and therefore he had reason not to be too sudden and precipitate in committing himself to the conduct of the Pope for fear of mistaking Antichrist for the Vicar of Christ Obj. But in all Commonwealths it is necessary there should be not only a Law for men to live by but also a living and speaking Judge to decide their differences arising about the various Interpretations of the Law and otherwise Controversies would be endless therefore if such a judge be so necessary in civil affairs for the procuring and preserving our temporal peace and happiness how much more necessary is he for the deciding of those Controversies that concern the saving and damning of our souls for ever Ans Hereunto I answer 1. That if it were as evident and certain that God hath appointed the Pope or Church of Rome to be the Guide of Faith and Judge of Controversies as that the King hath appointed such a one to be Lord Chief Justice the having of such a Guide would be very available for to preserve the Church in Unity and to conduct mens souls to Heaven but a Judge that has no better title or evidence to his place than the Pope has to that which he pretends to a Judge that is doubtful and justly questionable whether he be the Judge or no is in all probability likely to produce clean contrary effects and to be himself one of the Apples of strife one of the greatest subjects of Controversie and occasion of dissentions And to avoid this great inconvenience if God had intended the Pope or Church of Rome for this great Office certainly he would have said so very plainly and very frequently if not frequently certainly sometimes once at least he would have said so in express terms but he does not say so no not so much as once nor any thing from whence it may be collected with any sure or firm consequence therefore if it be not certain certainly it is very probable he never meant so Again in Civil Controversies the case can hardly be so put that there should be any necessity that the same man should be Judge and Party but in matters of Religion wherein all have equal interest every man is a party and engaged to judge for temporal respects this way or that way and therefore not fit to be a Judge But what then if he which was with so much clamor and so little reason vouched for the Infallibility of the Roman Church do tell you plainly there is no living Judge on Earth appointed by God to decide the Controversies arising amongst Christians nor no way to determine them but Scripture His words are express and formal and need no other commentary but a true interpretation Optatus Melevit lib. 5. ad princip Vos dicitis Licet nos non Licet inter Vestrum Licet nostrum non Licet nutant remigant animae populorum Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis omnes contentiosi homines sumus Quaerendi sunt judices si Christiani de utrâque parte dari non possunt de foris quaerendus est Judex Si Paganus non potest nosse Christiana Secreta Si Judaeus inimicus est Christiani Baptismatis Ergo in terris de hac re nullum poterit reperiri judicium de coelo quaerendus est Judex Sed ut quid pulsamus caelum cum habeamus hic in Evangelio Testamentum Quia hoc loco rectè possunt terrenae coelestibus comparari tale est quod quivis hominum habens numerosos filios His quamdiu presens est ipse imperat singulis non est adhuc necessarium Testamentum Sic Christus quamdiu praesens in terris fuit quamvis nec modo desit pro tempore quicquid necessarium erat Apostolis imperavit Sed quomodo terrenus pater cùm se in confinio senserit mortis timens ne post mortem suam ruptâ pace litigent fratres adhibitis testibus voluntatem suam de pectore morituro transfert in tabulas diù duraturas si fuerit inter fratres contentio nata non itur ad tumulum sed quaeritur Testamentum qui in tumulo quiescit tacitis de tabulis loquitur vivus Is cujus est testamentum in coelo est Ergo voluntas ejus velut in Testamento sic in Evangelio inquiratur That is You say such a thing is Lawful we say it is Unlawful the minds of the People are doubtful and wavering between your lawful and our unlawful Let no man believe either you or us we are all contentious men We must seek therefore for Judges between us If Christians are to be our Judges both sides will not afford such We must seek for a Judge abroad If he be a Pagan he cannot know the secrets of Christianity If he be a Jew he is an Enemy to Christian Baptism Therefore there is no judgment of this matter can be found on Earth We must seek for a Judge from Heaven But to what end do we sollicite Heaven when we have here in the Gospel a Will and Testament And because here we may fitly compare Earthly things with Heavenly The case is just as if a man had many Sons while
that I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah not according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel After those days saith the Lord I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their Hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my People and they shall teach no more every man his Neighbour and every man his Brother saying know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them saith the Lord. And now I have transcribed the place I think it superfluous to make any other answer The same Answer and no other will I make also to the 6th place The words are Therefore say unto the House of Israel thus saith the Lord God I do not this for your sakes O House of Israel but for my holy names sake ver 22. I will take you from among the Heathen and gather you out of all Countries and will bring you into your own Land v. 24. Then will I sprinkle clean Water upon you ver 25. A new heart also will I give you ver 26. And I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them ver 27. And ye shall dwell in the Land that I gave to your Fathers I will also save you from all your uncleannesses and I will call for the Corn and will encrease it and lay no Famine upon you And the desolate Land shall be tilled ver 34. And they shall say this Land that was desolate is become like the Garden of Eden The 7th place also carries its answer in its forehead Thus saith the Lord God behold I will take the Children of Israel from among the Heathen whether they be gone and I will make them one Nation in the Land upon the mountains of Israel and one King shall be King to them all c. to the end of the Chapter In all which place he that can find a Syllable of the Church of Rome he must have better eyes than I have The next 8th place would be very pregnant for the Church of Rome if of courtesie we would grant that whatsoever is promised to Israel is intended to them As you may see in the place at large from ver 17. to the end of the Chapter The 9th and last place out of the Canticles had it been urged by a Protestant it would have been thought a sufficient Answer to have said That Mystical Texts are not fit to argue upon but if this will not serve then we answer 1. That there is no mention nor intimation of the Church of Rome 2. That it proves either too much or nothing at all that is that the Roman Church is impeccable as well as infallible unless we will say that Errors only are Spots and impieties are not Out of the New Testament they alledge these Texts Matth. 16.18 Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it But this is said of the Catholick not of the Roman Church nor can it ever be proved that the Church in Communion with the See of Rome is the Catholick Church Secondly it says something for the perpetuity of the Church but not for the Infallibility of it unless you will take for granted what can never be proved That a Church that teaches any Erroneous Doctrine is a Church no longer which is all one as if you should say a man that has the Stone or Gout or any other Disease is not a man They urge Matth. 28.19 20. And I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the World And here also if we will grant 1. That by you is meant you and only you of the Church of Rome 2. That our Saviour has here obliged himself to assist not only Sufficienter but also irresistibiliter not only to preserve in the Church a light of sufficient direction as he provided a Star for the Wise Men and a Pillar of Fire and a cloud for the conduct of the Israelites but also compel or at least necessitate them to follow it 3. That he will be with them not only to keep them from all damnable and destructive Errors but absolutely form all erroneous Doctrines If these things I say were granted some good might be done But certainly these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too great favours to be lookt for by strangers And yet if all this be granted we should run into this inconvenience on the other side that if the promise be absolute not only the whole Church of Rome not only a general Council not the Pope alone but every Bishop every Priest every one who is sent by Christ to Baptize and Preach the Gospel might claim this assistance by vertue of Christs words and consequently Infallibility They urge Matth. 18.17 If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican And here again the Church must be the Church of Rome or we are as far to seek as ever But what if by it be meant which is most evident out of the place every particular Church of Christians whereunto any one Christian injured by another may address himself for remedy Certainly whosoever reads the place without prejudice I am confident that he shall not deny but that the sense of the Words is That if any Christian injure another and being first admonished of it by him in private then by him before two or three Witnesses Lastly by the Church he lives in and yet still proceeds on obstinately in doing injury to his Brother he is to be esteemed as a Heathen or a Publican and then if Infallibility may be concluded what a multitude of Infallible Churches shall we have They urge Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them But this also either shoots short or over either proves nothing or too much Either it proves not the Infallibility of the whole Church or it proves the Infallibility of every part of it Either not the Infallibility of General Councils or the infallibility of particular Councils for there two or three at least are assembled in Christs name But then besides these two or three for ought I can see or gather from the Text they may as well be of any other Church as the Roman They urge Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me But this will not do you any service unless of favour we grant that you here is you of the Church of Rome and but very little if that be granted for then every Bishop every Priest must be Infallible For there is not the meanest of the Messengers of Christ but this may be verified of him That he that heareth him
thing provided you do not call it a sacrifice So again Haeres 79. besides his putting cunningly ipsa fuit which before we took notice of he makes no scruple to put in Dogma and Sacrificium wheresoever it may be for his purpose Epiphanius his title to this Heresie is Against the Collyridians who offer to Mary Petavius puts in Sacrifice Again in the same page before D. he puts in his own illo dogmate and whereas Epiphanius says in all this he makes it in all this Opinion Pag. 1061. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates this womanish Opinion whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though perhaps it may signifie a thought or act of thinking yet I believe it never signifies an Opinion which we hold Ibid. at B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this he renders this Opinion Pag. 1064. at C. Nor that we should offer to her name simply and absolutely he makes it Nor that we should offer sacrifice to her name So many times is he fain to corrupt and translate him partially lest in condemning the Collyridians he might seem to have involved the practice of the Roman Church in the same Condemnation My Seventh and last Reason is this Had Epiphanius known that the Collyridians held the virgin Mary to be a Sovereign power and Deity then he could not have doubted whether this their offering was to her or to God for her whereof yet he seems doubtful and not fully resolved as his own words intimate Haeres 79. ad fin Quam multa c. How many things may be objected against this Heresie for idle Women either worshipping the Blessed Virgin offer unto her a Cake or else they take upon them to offer for her this foresaid ridiculous oblation Now both are foolish and from the Devil These Arguments I suppose do abundantly demonstrate to any man not viel'd with prejudice that Epiphanius imputed not to the Collyridians the Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God and if they did not think her God there is then no reason imaginable why their oblation of a Cake should not be thought a Present as well as the Papists offering a Taper or that the Papists offering a Taper should not be thought a Sacrifice as well as their offering a Cake and seeing this was the difference pretended between them this being vanished there remains none at all So that my first Conclusion stands yet firm that either the Ancient Church erred in condemning the Collyridians or the present errs in approving and practising the same worship An ADVERTISEMENT The Reader when he meets with the Phrase Catholick Doctrin in the two following Discourses must remember that it does not signifie Articles of Faith determined in any General Councils which might be looked upon as the Faith of the whole Church but the Current and Common Opinion of the Age which obtained in it without any known opposition and contradiction Neither need this be wondred at since they are about matters far removed from the Common Faith of Christians and having no necessary influence upon good life and manners whatsoever necessity by mistake of some Scriptures might be put upon them IV. An Argument drawn from the admitting Infants to the Eucharist as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility THE Condition without the performance whereof no man can be admitted to the Communion of the Church of Rome is this that he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever the Church requires him to believe More distinctly and particularly thus He must believe all that to be divine Revelation which that Church teaches to be such as the Doctrin of the Trinity the Hypostatical union of two natures in the person of Christ The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and such like Whatsoever that Church teaches to be necessary he must believe to be necessary As Baptism for Infants Faith in Christ for those that are Capable of Faith Penance for those that have committed mortal sin after Baptism c. Whatsoever that Church declares expedient and profitable he must believe to be expedient and profitable as Monastical Life Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead going on Pilgrimages The use of Pardons Veneration of holy Images and Reliques Latin Service where the people understand it not Communicating the Laity in one kind and such like Whatsoever that Church holdeth lawful he must believe lawful As to Marry to make distinction of Meats as if some were clean and others unclean to flie in time of Persecution for them that serve at the Altar to live by the Altar to testifie a truth by Oath when a lawful Magistrate shall require it to possess Riches c. Now is it impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless either it be evident of it self or he have some certain reason at least some supposed certain reason and infallible ground for his belief Now the Doctrins which the Church of Rome teacheth it is evident and undeniable that they are not evident of themselves neither evidently true nor evidently credible He therefore that will believe them must of necessity have some certain and infallible ground whereon to build his belief of them There is no other ground for a Mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome No man can be assured that that Church is infallible and cannot err whereof he may be assured that she hath erred unless she had some new promise of divine assistance which might for the future secure her from danger of erring but the Church of Rome pretends to none such Nothing is more certain than that that Church hath erred which hath believed and taught irreconcileable Contradictions one whereof must of necessity be an Error That the Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants and that the receiving thereof is not necessary for them That it is the will of God that the Church should administer the Sacrament to them and that it is not the will of God that the Church should do so are manifest and irreconcileable Contradictions Supposing only that which is most evident that the Eucharist is the same thing of the same vertue and efficacy now as it was in the primitive Church That Infants are the same things they were have as much need are capable of as much benefit by the Eucharist now as then As subject to irreverent carriages then as now And lastly that the present Church is as much bound to provide for the spiritual good of Infants as the Ancient Church was I say these things supposed the propositions before set down are plain and irreconcileable Contradictions whereof the present Roman Church doth hold the Negative and the Ancient Church of Rome did hold the Affirmative and therefore it is evident that either the present Church doth err in holding something not necessary which is so or that the Ancient Church did
expect from Heaven a Golden Hierusalem according to the Jewish tales which they call Duterossis which also many of our own have followed Especially Tertullian in his Book de spe fidelium and Lactantius in his seventh Book of Institutions and the frequent expositions of Victorinus Pictavionensis and of late Severus in his Dialogue which he calls Gallus and to name the Greeks and to joyn together the first and last Irenaeus and Apollinarius Where we see he acknowledges Irenaeus to be of this opinion but that he was the first that held it I believe that that is more a Christian untruth than Irenaeus his opinion a Judaical Fable For he himself acknowledges in the place above cited that Irenaeus followed Papias and it is certain and confessed that Justin Martyr believed it long before him and Irenaeus himself derives it from Presbyteri qui Johannem discipulum Domini viderunt from Priests which saw John the Disciple of the Lord. Lastly by Pamelius Sixtus Senensis and Faverdentius in the places above quoted Seeing therefore it is certain even to the confession of the Adversaries that Papias Justin Martyr Meleto and Irenaeus the most considerable and eminent men of their Age did believe and teach this Doctrine and seeing it has been proved as evidently as a thing of this nature can be that none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned it It remains according to Cardinal Perrons first rule that this is to be esteemed the Doctrine of the Church of that Age. My second Reason I form thus Whatsoever Doctrine is taught by the Fathers of any Age not as Doctors but as witnesses of the Tradition of the Church that is not as their own opinion but as the Doctrine of the Church of their times that is undoubtedly to be so esteemed especially if none contradicted them in it But the Fathers above cited teach this Doctrine not as their own private opinion but as the Christian Tradition and as the Doctrine of the Church neither did any contradict them in it Ergo it is undoubtedly to be so esteemed The Major of this Syllogism is Cardinal Perrons second Rule and way of finding out the Doctrine of the Ancient Church in any Age and if it be not a sure Rule farewel the use of all Antiquity And for the Minor there will be little doubt of it to him that considers that Papias professes himself to have received this Doctrine by unwritten Tradition though not from the Apostles themselves immediately yet from their Scholars as appears by Eusebius in the forecited third Book 33. Chapter That Irenaeus grounding it upon evident Scripture professes that he learnt it whether mediately or immediately I cannot tell from a Presbyteri qui Johannem Discipulum Domini viderunt Priests or Elders who saw John the Lords Disciple and heard of him what our Lord taught of those times of the thousand years and also as he says after from Papias the Auditor of John the Chamber-fellow of Polycarpus an Ancient man who recorded it in writing a Faverdentius his Note upon this place is very Notable Hinc apparet saith he from hence it appears that Irenaeus neither first invented this opinion nor held it as proper to himself but got this blot and blemish from certain Fathers Papias I suppose and some other inglorious fellows the familiar Friends of Irenaeus are here intended I hope then if the Fathers which lived with the Apostles had their blots and blemishes it is no such horrid Crime for Calvin and the Century writers to impute the same to their great Grandchildren Aetas parentum pejor avis progeniem fert vitiosiorem But yet these inglorious Disciples of the Apostles though perhaps not so learned as Faverdentius were yet certainly so honest as not to invent lies and deliver them as Apostolick Tradition or if they were not what confidence can we place in any other unwritten Tradition Lastly that Justin Martyr grounds it upon plain Prophecies of the Old Testament and express words of the New he professeth That he and all other Christians of a right belief in all things believe it joyns them who believe it not with them who deny the Resurrection or else says that none denied this but the same who denied the Resurrection and that indeed they were called Christians but in deed and Truth were none Whosoever I say considers these things will easily grant that they held it not as their own opinion but as the Doctrine of the Church and the Faith of Christians Hereupon I conclude whatsoever they held not as their private opinion but as the Faith of the Church that was the Faith of the Church of their time But this Doctrine they held not as their private opinion but as the Faith of the Church Ergo it was and is to be esteemed the Faith of the Church Trypho Do ye confess that before ye expect the coming of Christ this place Hierusalem shall be again restored and that your People shall be congregated and rejoyce together with Christ and the Patriarchs and the Prophets c. Justin Martyr I have confessed to you before that both I and many others do believe as you well know that this shall be but that many again who are not of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified unto you For I have declared unto you that some called Christians but being indeed Atheists and impious Hereticks do generally teach blasphemous and Atheistical and foolish things but that you might know that I speak not this to you only I will make a Book as near as I can of these our disputations where I will profess in writing that which I say before you for I resolve to follow not men and the Doctrines of men but God and the Doctrine of God For although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians which do not confess this but dare to Blaspheme the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob which also say there is no Resurrection of the Dead but that as soon as they die their Souls are received into Heaven do not ye yet think them Christians as neither if a man consider rightly will he account the Sadducees and other Sectaries and Hereticks as the Genistae and the Meristae and Galileans and Pharisees and Hellenians and Baptists and other such to be Jews but only that they are called Jews and the Children of Abraham and such as with their lips confess God as God himself cries out but have their Hearts far from him But I and all Christians that in all things believe aright both know that there shall be a Resurrection of the Flesh and a thousand years in Hierusalem restored and adorned and inlarged according as the Prophets Ezekiel and Esay and others do testifie for thus saith Isaiah of the time of this thousand years For there shall be a new Heaven and a new Earth and they shall not remember the former c.
And after A certain man amongst us whose name was John one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ in that Revelation which was exhibited unto him hath foretold That they which believe our Christ shall live in Hierusalem a thousand years and that after the Universal and everlasting Resurrection and Judgment shall be I have presumed in the beginning of Justin Martyrs answer to substitute not instead of also because I am confident that either by chance or the fraud of some ill-willers to the Millinaries opinion the place has been corrupted and turned into not into also For if we retain the usual reading But that many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified unto you then must we conclude that Justin Martyr himself did believe the opinion of them which denied the thousand years to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians and if so why did he not himself believe it nay how could he but believe it to be true professing it as he does if the place be right to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians for how a false Doctrine can be the pure and holy opinion of Christians what Christian can conceive or if it may be so how can the contrary avoid the being untrue unholy and not the opinion of Christians Again if we read the place thus That many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified certainly there wll be neither sense nor reason neither coherence nor consequence in the words following For I have told you of many called Christians but being indeed Atheists and Hereticks that they altogether teach blasphemous and impious and foolish things for how is this a confirmation or reason of or any way pertinent unto what went before if there he speak of none but such as were purae piaeque Christianorum sententiae of the pure and holy opinion of Christians And therefore to disguise this inconsequence the Translator has thought fit to make use of a false Translation and instead of for I have told you to make it besides I have told you of many c. Again if Justin Martyr had thought this the pure and holy opinion of Christians or them good and holy Christians that held it why does he rank them with them that denyed the Resurrection Why does he say afterward Although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians which do not confess this do not ye think them Christians Lastly what sense is there in saying as he does I and all Christians that are of a right belief in all things believe the Doctrine of the thousand years and that the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament teach it and yet say That many of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not believe it Upon these reasons I suppose it is evident that the place has been corrupted and it is to be corrected according as I have corrected it by substituting in the place of not instead of also Neither need any man think strange that this misfortune of the change of a Syllable should befal this place who considers that in this place Justin Martyr tells us that he had said the same things before whereas nothing to this purpose appears now in him And that in Victorinus comment on the Revelation wherein by S. Hieroms acknowledgment this Doctrine was strongly maintained there now appears nothing at all for it but rather against it And now from the place thus restored these Observations offer themselves unto us 1. That Justin Martyr speaks not as a Doctor but as a witness of the Doctrine of the Church of his time I saith he and all Christians that are of a right belief in all things hold this And therefore from hence according to Cardinal Perrons Rule we are to conclude not probably but demonstratively that this was the Doctrine of the Church of that time 2. That they held it as a necessary matter so far as to hold them no Christians that held the Contrary though you chance to meet with some called Christians that do not confess this but dare to Blaspheme the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. Yet do not ye think them Christians Now if Bellarmines Rule be true that Councils then determine any thing as matters of Faith when they pronounce them Hereticks that hold the Contrary then sure Justin Martyr held this Doctrine as a matter of Faith seeing he pronounceth them no Christians that contradict it 3. That the Doctrine is grounded upon the Scripture of the Old and New Testament and the Revelation of S. John and that by a Doctor and Martyr of the Church and such a one as was converted to Christianity within 30 years after the Death of S. John when in all probability there were many alive that had heard him expound his own words and teach this Doctrine and if probabilities will not be admitted this is certain out of the most authentical records of the Church that Papias the Disciple of the Apostles Disciples taught it the Church professing that he had received it from them that learned it from the Apostles and if after all this the Church of those Times might Err in a Doctrine so clearly derived and authentically delivered how without extream impudence can any Church in after times pretend to Infallibility The Millinaries Doctrine was over-born by imputing to them that which they held not by abrogating the Authority of S. John's Revelation as some did or by derogating from it as others ascribing it not to S. John the Apostle but to some other John they know not who which Dionysius the first known adversary of this doctrine and his followers against the Tradition of Irenaeus Justin Martyr and all the Fathers their Antecessors by calling it a Judaical opinion and yet allowing it as probable by corrupting the Authors for it as Justin Victorinus Severus VI. A Letter relating to the same Subject SIR I Pray remember that if a consent of Fathers either constitute or declare a Truth to be necessary or shew the opinion of the Church of their Time then that opinion of the Jesuits concerning Predestination upon prescience which had no opposer before S. Austin must be so and the contrary Heretical of the Dominicans and the present Church differs from the Ancient in not esteeming of it as they did Secondly I pray remember that if the Fathers be infallible when they speak as witnesses of Tradition to shew the opinion of the Church of their Time then the opinion of the Chiliasts which now is a Heresie in the Church of Rome was once Tradition in the Opinion of the Church Thirdly Since S. Austin had an opinion that of whatsoever no beginning was known that came from the Apostles many Fathers might say things to be Tradition upon that ground only but of this Opinion of the Chiliasts one of the ancientest Fathers Irenaeus
contemporary writers oppose or condemn it And besides they speak not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as of their own private opinion but as Apostolick Tradition and the Doctrine of the Church Horantius and out of him Franciscus a Sancta Clara teach us that under the Gospel there is no where extant any precept of Invocating Saints and tell us that the Apostles reason of their giving no such precept was lest the converted Gentiles might think themselves drawn over from one kind of Idolatry to another If this reason be good I hope then the position whereof it is the reason is true viz. that the Apostles did neither command nor teach nor advise nor persuade the converted Gentiles to invocate Saints for the reason here rendred serves for all alike and if they did not and for this reason did not so how then in Gods name comes invocation of Saints to be an Apostolick Tradition The Doctrines of Purgatory Indulgences and Prayer to deliver Souls out of Purgatory are so closely conjoyned that they must either stand or fall together at least the first being the Foundation of the other two if that be not Apostolick Tradition the rest cannot be so And if that be so what meant the Author of the Book of Wisdom to tell us that after Death the Souls of the righteous are in the hand of God and there shall no torment touch them What means S. John to teach us That they are Blessed which Die in the Lord for that they rest from their Labours But above all what meant Bishop Fisher in his Confutation of Luthers assertion so to prevaricate as to me he seems to do in the 18th Art in saying multos fortasse movet c. Peradventure many are moved not to place too great Faith in Indulgences because the use of them may seem not of long standing in the Church and a very late invention among Christians To whom I answer that * Therefore it is not true that all the Roman Doctrines were taught by Christ and his Apostles it is not certain by whom they began first to be taught Yet some use there was of them as they say very Ancient among the Romans which we are given to understand by the Stations which were so frequented in that City Moreover they say Gregory the first granted some in his time And after Caeterum ut dicere caepimus c. But as we were saying there are many things of which in the Primitive Church no mention was made which yet upon doubts arising are become perspicuous through the diligence of after times Certainly to return to our business no Orthodox man now doubts whether there be a Purgatory of which yet among the Ancients there was made very rare or no mention Moreover the Greeks to this very day believe not Purgatory Who so will let him read the writings of the Ancient Greeks and I think he shall find no speech of Purgatory or else very rarely The Latines also received not this verity all at once but by little and little Neither was the Faith whether of Purgatory or Indulgences so necessary in the Primitive Church as now it is for then Charity was so fervent that every one was most ready to Die for Christ Crimes were very rare and those which were were punished by the Canons with great severity But now a great part of the People would rather put off Christianity than suffer the rigour of the Canons That not without the great Wisdom of the Holy Spirit it hath come to pass that after the course of so many years the Faith of Purgatory and the use of Indulgences hath been by the Orthodox generally received as long as there was no care of Purgatory no man look'd after Indulgences for all the Credit of Indulgences depends on that Take away Purgatory and what need is there of Indulgences We therefore considering that Purgatory was a long while unknown That after partly upon Revelations partly upon Scripture it was believed by some and that so at length the Faith of it was most generally received by the Orthodox Church shall easily find out some reason of Indulgences Seeing therefore it was so late ere Purgatory was known and received by the Universal Church who now can wonder touching Indulgences that in the Primitive Church there was no use of them Indulgences therefore began after men had trembled a while at the Torments of Purgatory For then it is credible the Holy Fathers began to think more carefully by what means they might provide for their Flocks a remedy against those Torments for them especially who had not time enough to fulfil the Penance which the Canons enjoyned Erasmus tell us of himself that though he did certainly know and could prove that Auricular Confession such as is in use in the Roman Church were not of Divine institution yet he would not say so because he conceived Confession a great restraint from sin and very profitable for the times he lived in and therefore thought it expedient that men should rather by Error hold that necessary and commanded which was only profitable and advised than by believing though truly the non-necessity of it to neglect the use of that as by experience we see most men do which was so beneficial If he thought so of Confession and yet thought it not fit to speak his mind why might he not think the like of other points and yet out of discretion and Charity hold his peace And why might not others of his time do so as well as he and if so how shall I be assured that in the Ages before him there were not other men alike minded who though they knew and saw Errors and Corruptions in the Church yet conceiving more danger in the remedy than harm in the disease were contented hoc Catone to let things alone as they were lest by attempting to pluck the Ivy out of the Wall they might pull down the Wall it self with which the Ivy was so incorporated Sir Edwin Sandys relates that in his Travels he met with divers men who though they believed the Pope to be Antichrist and his Church Antichristian yet thought themselves not bound to separate from the Communion of it nay thought themselves bound not to do so because the True Church was to be the Seat of Antichrist from the Communion whereof no man might divide himself upon any pretence whatsoever And much to this purpose is that which Charron tells us in his third Verité cap. 4. § 13.15 That although all that which the Protestants say falsly of the Church of Rome were true yet for all this they must not depart from it and again Though the Pope were Antichrist and the Estate of the Church were such that is as corrupt both in discipline and Doctrine as they Protestants pretend yet they must not go out of it Both these assertions he proves at large in the above-cited Paragraphs with very many and very plausible reasons which I