ground of Protestāts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment mēt I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged ādshew that they are neither evidēt nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them ād the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple ād successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commādemēts ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by
Charitie vvhich by the Apostle is preferrd before those other two vertues 1. Cor. 13.13 Now there remayne Faith Hope Charity these three but the greater of these is Charity Besides Charity being the fulfilling of the law if we cannot keepe the commandements without grace as we will proue in the next Section it followes that without grace we cannot Loue as we ought for attaining saluation But yet let vs alledge some places of Scripture wherin this truth is set downe 1. Ioan 4.7 Charity is of God and euery one that loueth is borne of God aÌ„d knoweth God Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my Father will loue him and vve vvill come to him and will make aboad with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Who dare ascribe to a loue acquired by humane forces these priuiledges of keeping Gods word in so supernaturall a way as that the B. Trinitie will come and remaine vvith him Rom. 5.5 The charity of God is powred forth in our harts by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. Rom. 13.8 He that loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv V. 10. Loue therfor is the fulness of the lavv Galat. 5.22 The fruite of the spirit is charitie Ephes 6.23.24 Peace to the brethreÌ„ and charitie vvith faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Grace with all that loue our Lord Iesus Christ in incorruption XXIV Euen Chilling Pag. 20. saith what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite Goodness to them Protestants and their owne almost infinite wickedness against him Gods spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and syncere and a cordiall loue of God In vvhich vvords he may seeme to require the particular grace of the holy Ghost for exercising an Act of loue or charitie I say he may seeme because it is no nevves for him to dissemble or disguise his true meaning vnder some shew of words vsed by good Christians though it cost him a contradiction vvith himselfe and his ovvne Grounds Hovvsoeuer it be at least his manner of speach shevves hovv christians must not deny this truth SECTION V. The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandements and ouercoming temptations XXV THis point giues me againe iust occasion to obserue how they who deny a liuing jnfallible iudge of controuersies cannot auoyd running into pernitious extremes Some hold that Christians are not bound in conscience to keepe the Commandements a Vide Bellarm de justificatione l. 4. Cap. 1. in somuch as Luther is not afraid nor ashamed to say b In Commentario ad Cap 2 ad Galatas When it is taught that indeed faith in Christ iustifies but yet so as we ought to keepe the commandements because it is writteÌ„ if thou wilt enter into life keepe the coÌ„mandemeÌ„ts there Christ is instantly denyed aÌ„d faith abolished And elswhere c In Sermone de nouo Testamento siâ—e de Mâ—ssa Let vs take heed of sinnes but much more of lawes and good works Let vs attend only to the promise of God and faith I wonder how a man can take heed of sinne and ioyntly take heed of good workes Shall he be still doing and yet doe neither good nor badd Some teach that it is impossible to keepe the commandements euen with the assistance of diuine grace Others that they may be kept by the force of nature and that the assistance of Gods grace is not necessary except only to keepe them with greater ease or facility XXVI The true Catholike doctrine is that we may keepe the commandements and ouercome temptations by the grace of God not by our owne naturall forces which is manifestly declared in Holy Scripture EZechiel 36.26 I will giue you a new hart and put a new spirit in middest of you and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh aÌ„d will giue you a fleshie hart And I will put my spirit in the middest of you and I will make that you walk in my precepts and keepe my iudgments and doe them 1. Ioan. 5.3 This is the charity of God that we keepe his commandements Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my father will loue him and we will come to him and will make abode with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Behold louing or not louing keeping or not keeping the commandements goe togeather But we haue proued that Grace is necessary to loue God it is therfor necessary to keepe his commandements Rom. 8.3 For that which was impossible to the law in that it was weakned by the flesh God sending his son in the flesh of sinne euen of sinne damnes sinne in the flesh That the iustification of the Law might be fulfilled in vs. 1. Cor. 7.7 The Apostle teaches that not only the continency of virgins and widdowes but maried people also is the gift of God saying Euery one hath a proper guift of God one so and another so Sap. 8.21 And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent vnless God gaue it this very thing also was wisdom to know whose this gift was I went to our Lord and besought him Rom. 2.13 Not the hearers of the Law are iust with God but the doers of the Law shall be iustifyed And yet the same Apostle sayth Galat 2 21. If iustice by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine And we may say in the same manner If iustice by nature and not by Grace Christ died in vaine S. Iames 3.8 The tong no man can tame Rom. 5.20.21 The Law entered in that sinne might abound and where sinne abounded grace did more abound that as sinne raigned to death so also grace may raigne by iustice to life euerlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord. Which words declare that grace is so necessary for fulfilling the Law that without it the Law was occasion of death by reason of humane frailty and corruption Rom. 4.15 The Law worketh wrath Rom. 7. V. 23.24.25 I see another Law in my members repugning to the law of my mynd and captiuing me in the law of sinne that is in my members Vnhappy man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. 1. Cor. 15.56 57. The power of sinne is the law But thankes be to God that hath giuen vs victory by our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 10.13 God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able but will make also with teÌ„ptation issue that you may be able to sustaine Psalm 17.30 In thee I shall be deliuered from teÌ„ptation Psa 26.9 Be thou my helper forsake me not Psalm 29.7.8 I sayd in my aboundance I will not be moued for euer Thou hast turned away thy face from me and I became troubled Psalm 117.13 Being thrust I was ouerturned to fall and our Lord receyued me 1. Pet. 5. V. 8.9 Be sober
necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture in that first sense and by an evidence of the Text alone without dependance or relation to any other thing for example the Church or Tradition which particulars surely the Scripture never expresses I beseech the Reader to consider this and mark to what an impossible taske Protestants are engaged Yet this is not all It will still remayne doubtfull whether that Text which did say that all things are evidently contayned in Scripture be vnderstood vniversally of all things necessary to be believed or only of things necessary to be believed and written which if you wil needs haue to be all one or of the same extent you begg the Question in supposing that all things necessary to be believed are necessarily to be written in the Holy Scripture 10. These reflections being premised about the Meaning of the words Necessary and Evident I belieue any man who as I sayd shall thinke well before he speake and then speak as he thinks will hold it a very impossible thing to proue evidently out of Scripture all things necessary for the Church as one Mysticall Body For every Degree and for every particular Member therof according to the first Meaning of Evidence and other prescriptions which I haue declared Let vs therfor looke backe a litle vpon those three different sorts of Persons 11. First for Government and Governours of the Church if we abstract from the Authority Practise Tradition and interpretation of Gods Church I wonder who will goe about to proue with certainty out of evident Scripture what Episcopus must signify in Scripture a Bishop Superintendent or Overseer or any who hath a charge or superiority according to the fashion of Protestants who loue to take words according to Grammaticall derivation not according to the Ecclesiasticall Ancient vse of them Even Protestants grant that the words Presbyter and Episcopus are in Scripture taken for the same and Dr Jer Taylor in his Defence of Episcopacy § 23. Pag 128. saith expressly The first thing done in Christendome vpon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common If they will translate Presbyter to signify an Elder what Certainty can they receyve from that word whether it ought to be taken for elder in Age or greater in Dignity And it is no better than ridiculous that Protestants should first deny vnwritten Traditions and Authority of the Church for interpreting Scriptures and deciding Controversyes in Faith and then take great paynes to proue out of evident Scripture alone that Bishops are de Jure Divino and the same I say of any other particular Forme of Ecclesiasticall Government and of the Quality and Extent of Authority in any such Forme whether they can inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures and of what kind concerning which and other such Poynts necessary to be knowne in the Church Protestants in vayne and without end will be sighting for an impossibility till they acknowledge some other Rule or judge of Controversyes than Scripture alone 12. Besides how will they learne out of Scripture alone the Forme of Ordination of Priestes and other Orders the Matter and Forme of other Sacraments which some in the Church are to administer by Office and others to receyue of which I shall speake more particularly hereafter with diverse other such Poynts necessary for the Church in generall 13. Secondly For diverse Degrees or States in the Church no man can chuse but see how hard it is to learne evidently out of Scripture alone what in particular belongs to every one both for Belief and Practise 14. Thirdly For every particular Person How can a Protestant proue evidently out of Scripture the Nature of Faith since one Sect of them denyes Christian Faith to be infallibly true against the rest of their fellowes and an other affirmes that justifying Faith is that wherby one firmly believes that he is just which kind of Faith others deny or the necessary Extent of their Faith seing Chilling holds that there cannot be given a Catalogue of Points necessary to be believed explicitly by all and therfor every one must either remayne vncertaine whether he believe all that is absolutely necessary or else be obliged vnder damnation to know explicitly all cleare passages of Scripture which are innumerable least otherwise he put himself in danger of wanting what is indispensably necessary to salvation which is a burthen no lesse vnreasonable than intolerable even to men not vnlearned and much more to vulgar Persons 15. Neither is there less dissiculty concerning Pennance or true Repentance than Faith since Protestants do not agree in what Repentance consist and Chilling hath a conceypt different from the rest that true Repentance requires the effectuall mortification of the Habits of all vices which being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant as he writes Pag. 392. N. 8. and therfor even that most perfect kind of sorrow which Divines call Contrition and is conceyved against sin for the loue of God will not serue at the howre of ones death because saith he Repentance is a work of difficulty and tyme. 16. Morover it is impossible for Protestants to proue evidently out of Scripture that the Sacraments of Baptisme and Pennance are not necessary for salvation For where fynd they any such Text If they say we must hold them not necessary because we find no such necessity evidently exprest in Scripture they do but begg the Question and suppose that all things necessary are contayned in Scripture besides that we haue Scripture for both Nisi quis renatu◠fuerit c vntess one shall be borne againe c Ioan 3.5 And whose sinnes you retayne they are retayned Ioan. 20.23 and it is impossible for any man to shew evidently out of Scripture that those Texts are not de facto vnderstood as we vnderstand them since it is most evident that the words are capable of such a sense and consequently we cannot be certaine but that such is their meaning vnless they can bring some evident Text to the contrary especially since that even divers chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Baptisme for children of the Faithfull as I shew herafter And certainly if Scripture were evident against this Doctrine of Catholiques so many learned Protestants could not but haue seene it 17. The same I say of the Sacrament of Pennance which divers learned Protestants hold to be so necessary as some say that It is a wicked thing to take away private Absolution And that They who contemne it do not vnderstand what is Remission of sinnes or the power of the keyes And that it is an Errour to affirme that Confession made before God doth suffice And that Private Confession being taken away Christ gave the keyes in vaine vide Triple Cord Chap. 24. Pag. 613. And vitae Lutheri Autore Gasparo Vienbergio Lippiensi Cap. 30. it is sayd Osiander primus ex ministris Norinbergae
probability be alledged on both sides that men of vpright harts may some goe one way and some another 30. What words more cleare than those of our B Saviour Matth 26. V. 26. This is my Body Insomuch as Luther in his Booke Defensio verborum Coenae saies against the Sacramentaryes who deny the Reall presence This Heresy doth not impugne doubtfull opinyons and doubtfull Testimonyes of Scripture but plaine and express sentences of Scripture yet many Protestants deny this Mystery of the Reall presence vpon pretence that other Texts of Scripture are contrary to it and in particular that in S. Iohn's Gospell Cap 6. V. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing Which is a strange kind of interpreting words most cleare by a Text very obscure But God in his holy Providence permits these men to fall vpon such impertinences for their owne confutation as happens in this occasion For as they deny the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Eucharist so they deny or elude the reall Presence or Descent of his soule into Hell interpreting those words of the Acts 2.27 Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell Non relenques cadaver meum in sepulchro Thou wilt not leaue my dead Body in the sepulcher So Beza vpon that place And Vorstius in Antibellarm Pag 42. Nihil vetat per Animam synecdochicè intelligere ipsum corpus quidem jam mortuum We may well by a synecdoche vnderstand by the soule the body even the dead body Serranus contra Hayum sayth that per animam Act 2. V. 27. non intelligitur anima marke soule not the soule sed mortuus homo siue cadaver but a dead man or a dead body And which is strange he assirmes that this interpretation is cleare For the present I will not examine this strange interpretation of an Article of our Creed Descendit ad inferos He descended vnto Hell Of which Potter Pag 240. sayth The words are so plame they beare their meaning before them nor will I obserue even by this example how far Scripture is from being evident to these men who faine such glosses vpon words so cleare and yet say that their interpretation is cleare But I will only say if the soule which is a spirit may signify flesh and flesh be taken for the soule or spirit those words Spiritus est qui vivificat caro non prodest quicquam It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh prositeth nothing may be inverted and taken thus against themselves caro est quae vivificat spiritus non prodest quicquam It is the flesh which quickeneth the spirit profiteth nothing For if the soule may signify the body why may not the body signify the soule by the same new kind or Figure In the meane tyme these men should consider that their owne Divines assirme S. Iohn in that sixth Chapter not to speak of the Sacrament and it is a strange kind of proofe to argue out of Scripture for that of which that Scripture is confessed even by him who so argues not to speak But because many examples or instances may be alledged to proue the difficulty of Scripture even in the most Principall and Fundamentall Articles of our Faith we will touch some in the next Reason for to speak of all would be endless 31. Fiftly The same is demonstrated by these particulars What can be more cleare to proue the Consubstantiality of the son of God with his Eternall Father than Ego Pater vnum sumus Ioan 10. V. 13. I and the Father are one And yet the old and new Arians with Chilling and other Socinians deny it pretending falsly that it is against Reason and contrary to other Text of Scripture What can be more expressly delivered if we respect the bare word than that there is one God Creatour of Heaven and Earth And yet for the signification of the words to omit old Heretiques as the Simoniani Menandriani Basilidiani Valentinistae Marcionistae Manichaei and the whole rabble of the Gnostici who taught that there is not one God Omnipotent Creatour of Heaven and Earth haue we not in our dayes Socinians who indeed destroy the true God by making him a Subject of Accidents and depriving him of his Immensity Omniscience of futura (a) Crellius Lib 1. de vera Religione Cap 24. Contingentia or the future Actions which are to proceed from Freewill although nothing be more cleare in Scripture than that God is every where filling Heaven and Earth and that one distinction of the true God from false ones is that he can infallibly foretell things to come and that he inspired Prophets to prophecy with absolute certainty things remote for Tyme and Place which being denyed the books of the Prophets must be rent from the Bible as deluding men and worse than Apocriphall Tertullian Lib 2. cont Marcion Cap 5. ait Deum quot facit Prophetas tot habere testes suae praescientiae God hath as many witnesses of his Prescience as are the Prophets whom he makes Doth not Calvin depriue God of Mercy and Justice in teaching that he predestinates men to eternall damnation and punishes them for sins to which they were necessitated by the same God What can be more cleare in our Creed and scripture than that Christ was conceyved of the Holy Ghost borne of the Virgin Mary suffered dyed rose agayne and ascended into Heaven if we looke vpon the words And yet for the sense which is the life and soule of scripture there are most different and contrary doctrines concerning these Poynts I let pass those Heretiques who taught that Christ suffered not really but only in appearance or shew And why might not they as well say that the words he was crucifyed and dyed are not to be taken litterally as our Sacramentaryes teach the words This is my body are to be vnderstood figuratively But these I let pass and only reflect that for the thing signifyed by those words according to our moderne Sectaryes there is neither certainty who he is that was borne suffered dyed rose agayne c nor of the End for which he was borne suffered and dyed nor of the Effect and Fruite of his life and Death For Socinians deny that he who was borne suffered c was true God and Man or that the End for which he suffered was to redeeme vs by satisfying and paying the ransome of our sins but only by way of instructing or giving vs exāple And Calvinists teache that the Effect or Fruite of our Saviours Actions and sufferings is not any true remission or washing away our sins but only a not imputing them their guilt and deformity still remaining as Calvin in 2. Corinth 5. V. 21. declares Quomodo justi coram Deo sumus Qualiter scilicet Christus fuit peccator How are we just befor God in such manner as Christ was a sinner O injury to men as if none were otherwise just than Christ was a sinner of whom
it is sayd It was seemly that we should haue such a high Priest holy innocent impolluted separated from sinners Heb 7. V. 26. O blasphemy against Christ our Lord as if he had bene truly a sinner as just men are truly just of whom we reade evident texts that they are renewed in the spirit of their mynd and haue put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holiness of the truth Ephes 4.23.24 not of a falshood or disguise of truth that they are regenerated and Renewed of the Holy Ghost Tit 3.3 that their sins are taken away 1. Paral 21.8 that cleare water is powred vpon them and they clensed from all their contaminations Ezech 36.25 that they shal be sprinkled with hyssope clensed washed and made whyter than snow Psalm 50 9. that their sins shal be sought and shall not be found Psalm 9.5 that their sins are purged Prov. 19.27 that they are all fayre and there is not a spot in them Cant. 4.7 If thy sins shal be as scarlet they shal be made whyte as snow and if they be red as vermelion they shal be whyte as wooll Isay 1.18 they haue washed their robes and haue made them whyte in the bloud of the lamb Apoc. 7.14 With sundry other evident texts which I cited in the Introduction Sect. 9. And yet our Sectaryes will haue just men and Saints to be still in sinne and so Calvinian saints are eternally stayned with that which is the most detestable thing in the very Divells namely deadly sinne The Apostle sayth Rom. 5.18 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so also by the Obedience of one many shal be made just Will Calvin say that we were made sinners only by imputation and not by true sin inexistent in our soule And how then can he deny but that men are just by true inherent Justice And if it be so how dare he blaspheme that Christ was a sinner as just men are just which is to say that he was a sinner by inherent sinne or injustice as other sinners are But this is the fruite of relying on scripture alone that is indeed of following their owne fancy What can be more evident and in more express words delivered in scripture than that without the speciall Grace of God merited by our Saviours Life and Death we cannot doe any worke or speak any words or think any thought avayling towards eternall salvation and yet Pelagians taught the contrary and Socinians hold that we merit all for our selves and Christ nothing for vs as contrarily Protestants commonly say that Christ merited all for vs and we nothing for our selves So contrary Heresyes arise when once men despise the Authority of Gods Church What Poynt more cleare in scripture and more purposely and carefully proved by S. Paule than that Article of our Creed the Resurrection from Death and yet the Socinians teach that in Heaven we shall haue I know not what celestiall body essentially different from that which was buryed in the graue (a) Vid Volkel de vera Relig Lib 3. Cap 35. Besides do not those Lutherans who defend the Vbiquity of our Sauiours Humanity vnderstand evident words or do they want skill in lang uages And yet it is manifest that they destroy all the Mysteryes of the Nativity Ascension c of our Saviour Christ For who can come or goe or ascend or descend from one place to another who is presupposed to be in all places no less then God is according to his Deity who therfor cannot be mooved from one place to another 32. Sixtly These things considered the Reader may justly wonder at Chilling who expressly specifyes the sayd Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ for instances that the Scripture is evident concerning them His words Pag 101. N. 127 are If any one should deny that God is Omnipotent Omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seeke him a punisher of those that obstinately offend him that Iesus Christ is the senne of God and Saviour of the world that it is he by Obedience to whom men must looke to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Paâ—sion or Resurrection or Ascension or sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judg of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise againe at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not belieue or repent shal be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one who believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoyd that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide Thus he But by his leaue who does not see both by Reason and Experience the contrary of that of which he sayth who does not see And how hard is it to distinguish and judg what is or is not plainly delivered in Scripture if we respect the sense and not the words only And if we consider not one text alone but coâ—â— are it with other passages which seeme to signify a different or even contrary thing especially if he add the great disserence and contrariety of opinions amongst his Brethren the Protestants concerning such poynts some of them judging that to be plaine and evident in scripture which others belieue not only to be obscure but the contrary to be true and all this out of evident scripture as they apprehend as appeares by these very examples which he picks out for Truths plainly delivered in scripture as we haue alredy demonstrated For Gods Omniptency the scripture saith plainly Matth 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise vp children to Abraham And Matth 20.53 Thinkest thou that I cannot aske my Father and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels Luc 1.36 there shall not be impossible with God any word And yet Calvin in severall occasions impugnes the distinction of Catholique Divines of Potentia Dei ordinaria absoluta of Gods ordinary Power and his absolute power and rejects that which they call Potentia absoluta We haue shewed already that Gods Omniscience is denyed by the Socinians whom Chilling highly esteemes for learning and piety also as appeares in what he sayes in his Answer to the Direction to N.N. N. 29. and yet they did wel vnderstand the learned languages and the words of scripture for the Grammaticall signification 33. With what modesty can Hee say that it is evident in scripture that Iesus Christ is the son of God Saviour of the world and sitteth at the right haÌ„d of God and hath all power giveÌ„ him in heaveÌ„ aÌ„d
which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at
the heaviest imputation that can be imagined For seing Charity is major horum greater than Faith or Hope in saying we want Charity you say we offend against a vertue of greater perfection than any other either Theologicall or Morall And so Protestants in generall are more vncharitable against Catholikes by accusing them of want of Charity than Catholikes can be against them who we say cannot be saved without Repentance for want of true Faith And it is well to be observed that Protestants do not accuse vs of vncharitableness in saying they want true Faith seing they profess to belieue that we also erre in Faith but because we say they cannot be saved supposing they want the true Faith as we also ought to belieue of ourselves vnless we were most infallibly certaine of the truth of our Faith as we are Fourthly You shew little skill in Divinity while you make no difference betwixt an erronious Conscience and errour wheras Conscience which is always considered in order to practise may be practicè true and right and yet rely vpon some invincible speculatiue errour Fiftly In vaine you labour to proue that ignorance is not accidentall to errour seing you know very well that Charity Maintayned spoke not of ignorance and errour as if they were accidentall to themselves or all ignorance accidentall to errour but that to be inexcusable or not excusable vincible or invincible culpable or not culpable voluntary or not voluntary are accidentall both to ignorance and errour which you will not deny seing they are separable and some errour may be vincible and some other invincible c. Wherin if you impugne him you confute yourselfe who Pag 25. say that he who erres though not conceaveable without ignorance simply may be very well considered either as with or without voluntary and sinfull ignorance This occurres concerning your answer to the Preface Now I come to answer your Chapters as they lye in order CHAP X. The Ansvver to his FIRST CHAPTER ABOVT THE STATE OF THE QVESTION And VVhether amongst men of DIFFERENT RELIGIONS one side only can be saved 1. I Omitt to take notice that wheras Charity Maintayned in the Title of his First Chapter speakes expressly of men of different Religions you turne Religions into Opinions saying There is no reason why among men of different Opinions one side only can be saved As if there were no difference between difference in Faith and Religion and in Opinion Which shewes that no man could do you injury in saying that your kind of Christian Faith was but Opinion wherof you complaine Pag 35. N. 7. But this I omit heere and come to tell you that in vaine you take great paines to pervert notoriously the meaning of Charity Maintayned against his words and intention about the possibility of the saveablenesse of Protestants Wheras Hee and Charity Mistaken and all Catholikes belieue and professe the same thing That a Protestant or any other Sectary if his errour be sinfull cannot be saved wihout repentance of those errours it being impossible that the sin should be forgiven while one remaines in it And therfore Charity Maintayned distinguishing between the sinfull errours in the vnderstanding of a Protestant and other sins which he might haue committed hath these expresse words we haue no revelation what light might haue cleared his errours or Contrition retracted his sins in the last moment before his death The reason why besides the relinquishing of his errours Charity Maintayned expressly required retractation of all other deadly sins was least any should thinke that for the salvation of Protestants or any other Sectaryes it were sufficient that they were cleared from their Heresyes and vnited to the Church by Faith wheras indeed after that is done there remaines a chiefe businesse which is to conceiue effectuall sorrow for all other deadly sins For which cause when we vnderstand that a Catholike who hath true Faith dyes suddenly or without Sacramentall absolution we are moved with just feare and griefe So that Charity Maintayned expressly requires two things A renounciation of errours and contrition both for those sinfull errours and all other sins And therfore you had no reason at all to say Pa. 31. N. 3. I wish you had expressed yourselfe in this matter more fully and plainly hee having declared himselfe very clearly 2. But you are not only vnreasonable but vnjust also when you take for plaine that which even yourselfe in this very place say was not plaine And what you saie is only insinuated that though no light did cleare the errours of a dying Protestant yet Contrition might retract his sins you take for a plaine affirmation or concession and continue to do so and build vpon it through your whole Booke declaring therby that you do proficere in pejus even against your owne sayings passing from an insinuating to a certainty for which cause the Author of that pithy and learned treatise called the totall summe Pag 39. calles your proceeding in this particular an impudent slandering of Charity Maintayned And that what you cannot obtaine by truth and fayre dealing you seeke to get by falshood fraud and forgery And Pag 40. that without shame you falsify the Tenet of your Adversary and the Doctrine of our Church And Pag 42. That the saying which Pag 31. N. 4. you set downe in a distinct character as the verball and formall Assertion of Charity Maintayned is forged and fayned by yourselfe from the first to the last syllable therof not only against his meaning in that place but also the whole drift of his Treatise and that in this you shew the Adamantinall hardness of your Socinian forhead and Samosatenian conscience And Pag 43. That it is an impudent vntruth and that your collection of it out of Charity Maintayned is a fond and voluntary inference as most certainly it is For neither Charity Maintayned himselfe nor any other who read his Booke did ever intertaine any least imagination of such a meaning Insomuch that a Protestant Writer Francis Cheynell hath these words Men are damned saith he Mr. Chillingworth I who dy in willfull errours without repentance but what if they dy in their errours with repentance Answer in the preface Pag 20. That is a contradiction saith the Iesuit and he sayth true which shewes the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned to be that sinfull errours cannot remaine with repentance but must be relinquished Lastly to make this your calumny inexcusable Charity Maintayned N. 5. hath these very words But yet least any man should flatter himselfe with our charitable mitigations and therfore waxe carelessin search of the true Church we desire him to read the Conclusion of the second Part where this matter is more explayned Now in that Conclusion he teaches that our greatest care must be to find out that one saving Truth which can be found only in the true visible Catholique Church of Christ which we shall be sure not to misse if our endeavour be not wanting to his
advice of humility it being time enough for them to know and reflect that S. Peter was their Head by that expresse future declaration of our Saviour Joan 21. 38. Thirdly You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest because the Scripture sayth God hath appointed first Apostles secondly Prophets but sayth not God hath appointed First Peter then the rest of the Apostles which to speake truth is a childish reason it being cleare that the Scripture in that place doth not compare the Apostles among themselves but with other degrees in the Church as Prophets Doctours c. Otherwise you might proue that one Magistrate can not be subordinate and subject to another if one for example should say the commonwealth consists of Magistrates and people because forsooth in that division you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate aboue another 39 Fourthly you say S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles and if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles it was a wonder that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself as that mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour But I beseech you can you belieue that S. Paul would say of himself that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles absolutely and in all things He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners and laments that he had bene a persecutor of Christians and will you needs vnderstand him to say that in such respects he was not inferiour to the other Apostles who were innocent of those things He was an Apostle as the others were and that is all you can vnderstand by his words and all that makes just nothing to the purpose But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour No more doth he giue any title to S. James though he were Bishop of Hierusalem which surely deserves some honour if the simplicity of those blessed tymes had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles Yourself say heere S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not haue supreme Authority over them and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first in order and honour how then will your answer your owne objection that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him without any title of honour seing particular honour was due to him even by our Saviours command For from what other cause could it proceede But shall I disclose to you a mystery on which it seemes you do not reflect Our Saviour whose words are operatiue and deeds by calling S. Peter Cephas or a Rock had also made him such and saied Tues Petrus Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church so that to name Peter is to call him the Foundation and head of the Church and all Christians and with what greater title of honour could any body mention any Creature we may therefore say of S. Peter as S. Ambrose saieth of the title of Martyr De Uirginibus Lib. 1. Quot homines tot praecones qui Martyrem praedidicant dum loquuntnr To name one a martyr is a title of honour and so it is to name Peter for the foresaied Reason 40. You conclude Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more fooleries say I not probabilities that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine Right Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church vniversall Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be the foundation of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 41. Answer If you suppose as for the present you doe that S. Peter by our Saviours institution and consequently by divine right was Head of the Apostles you should not say what incongruity is there but what incongruity is there not if we say that the Bishop of Rome might succeed S. Peter only in the Government of that particular Church For what can be more incongruous and foolish than to imagine that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles and the whole Church only for his life time when there was no need and as we may saie litle vse thereof seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians and Power to preach the Gospell through the whole world and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter must haue relation to future Ages after the death of the Apostles and if it must still reside in some in whom can you imagine it to be seated except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter to remaine in his Successors appeares by his words which I haue pondered aboue as also because he speakes of the Sea or Chaire of Rome as of the Rule whereby to judg of heresies and Schismes not only for the tyme of S. Peter but for ever and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only and saith Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c and so goes on till his owne ayme And I would gladly know by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church was so particular and personall to him that it ceased with his person Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith with your congruities or incongruities With your Socinian topicall humane vaine discourses What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S Peter was living I will not examine heere whether or in what manner Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before S. Peters death wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth they were not Romanae sedis episcopi but only Coadjutores I beseech you remember what you saied N. 98. and 99. interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus that in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop and certainly it is no consequence The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome and supplying