the Church and the things which she delivers as true you grant the Church to be indued with infallibility as I may say habitually otherwise we could not belieue her Traditions or that the things which she delivers are true though she were supposed to deliver them Now if once it be granted that the Church is infallible not only as a witness of what hath bene done but also of what ought to be done that is of Fact and Faith of Practise and Speculation we haue as much as we desire to wit that the Church cannot erre in her Traditions or in defining what hath bene delivered by the Apostles And in this Whitaker by rejecting S. Chrysostome whom he could not otherwise answer shewes more sincerity then you doe 204. Lastly Wheras you say there are no vniversall Traditions of the Church for matters of Doctrine we haue demonstrated aboue that there are many as for example those which concerne the Governours and Government of the church Forme and matter of Sacraments and other Points of which I spoke hertofore even out of Dr. Field and other Protestant learned Writers And indeed seing S. Chryfostome saith as we haue seene that the Apostles delivered many things without writing who will belieue without any convincing reason to the contrary that not one of those many should be transmitted to posterity considering how many things are not clearly expressed in Scripture even the chief heads of Christian Doctrine as Dr. Field confesses and I haue demonstrated that the very Articles of our Creed are not cleare without the Declaration of the church and it appeares in the experience we haue before our eyes in the contentions of Protestants concerning those principall Articles of the Creed 205. But now let vs returne to answer your assertion out of S. Austine which in effect is done to our hands by Dr. Field who Lib 4. Cap 20. summoneth divers Traditions not contayned in scripture as the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurly contained in Scripture Yea Dr. Potter though he hold all Fundamentall Points of Faith to be contained in the Creed yet Pag 216. he puts this restriction that it must be taken in a Catholike sense that is as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emergent Heresyes in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon and Athanasius Now as Heresyes may still arise so still there will be necessity of a new opening or explanation and what would such explications availe vs in order to an Act of Faith if the whole church may erre And therfor when S. Austine is alledged to say that all necessary Points are manifest in scripture he cannot be vnderstood of scripture alone without explication or declaration of the church even for Fundamentall Points and consequently necessary to salvation contayned in the Creed This answer you might haue gathered out of S. Austines words if you had cited them aright as I haue done aboue Illa quae c Those things which are sett downe plainly in them Bookes of Holy Scripture whether they be precepts of good life or Rules of Faith are to be sought out with more industry and diligence of which every one fynds out the more by how much he is of a greater vnderstanding For in those things which are plainly sett downe in scripture all those things are found which contayne Faith and manners Do not these words signify that one must vse great diligence to seeke out the meaning of scripture and that some of greater ability even in things belonging to Faith fynd out more than others which argues that every one fynds not out all poynts of belief ād life for which therfor an authēticall interpreter or Tradition is necessary If it had not bene for tradition how would so many of our moderne sectaries haue believed the Mystery of the B. Trinity and some other Articles of Faith But the truth is we are often obliged to tradition when we least think thereof 206. In the meane tyme I must not omitt to say that in this First answer with falshood you joyne impertinency to divert the Reader from the state of the Question in saying Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church vnderstand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to vs who cast of no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the tyme of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes for our Question is not for the present Whether you deny any vniversall practise or Doctrine of Gods church but in generall whether the traditions of the church be not to be followed and believed whether they concerne Doctrine or practise and consequently whether scripture alone contayne all Objects of Faith and it seemes by this your answer that you do not deny the certainty of the churches vniversall traditions nor that he who refuseth to follow them may be thought to resist our Saviour which is as much as we desire 207. Your last answer That the church once held the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that therfor the church may erre is a meer vntruth and it is strang that you should so intollerably often alledg this Point and yet never so much as once offer to proue it and to alledg it as the doctrine of S. Austine without bringing one single Text out of him to make it good wheras you cannot be ignorant that Catholique divines alledg all that can be sayd out of S. Austine concerning this subject and solidly demonstrate that the actuall receyving Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist was never held by that holy Father to be necessary for infants and you presume too much if you thinke vs obliged to belieue you against greater and better authority than yours can be only by your ego dico I say it 208. Pag. 151. N. 42. You Object against my Argument out of this place of S. Austine Epist 118. If the church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness That it is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter because S. Austine speakes only of matters of order and decency and from hence I inferr if the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madness As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things 209. Answer 1. I cited S. Austine These things not any thing 2. If S. Austine did not suppose that the Catholique church cannot erre he could not say that it were a most insolēt madness to dispute against that which she practises For one might doubt whether that which she practises did not containe some errour against Faith or deviation from manners or whether that which you call order and decency or circumstance may not
is profanely applyed to our present case wherin it is an vnspeakable benefit to haue our liberty not taken away but moderated directed and elevated to the End of Eternall Happyness If in any case certainly in this that saying Licentia omnes sumus deteriores is most true as lamentable experience teaches in so many Heresyes and so implacable contentions of Heretikes among themselves by reason of the liberty which every one presumes to take in interpreting Holy Scripture And for avoiding so great an inconvenience and mischeife it is necessary to acknowledg some infallible Living Judg and so your Rule for Liberty being rightly applyed proves against yourself And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility I must returne against you your owne words Me thinkes in all Reason you that presume to take away Priviledges once granted by God himself for the Eternall Good of soules should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt especially it being a Rule Privilegia sunt amplianda chiefly when they proceed from a Soveraigne Power and are helped by that Dictate of Reason Melior est conditio possidentis And in the meane tyme you are hee who breake that Rule Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate by pretending that men are obliged to submit Reason though seeming never so certaine and evident to the contents of Scripture which yet you teach not to be manifestly and certainly but only probably true Against which is your owne saying Praesumitur pro libertate vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur as it happens in your fallible and only probable Faith which cannot be manifestly proved to be true for if it could be so proved Christian Faith should be absolutely certaine and not only probable And so continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary 76. I will not here loose tyme in examining your saying Pag 101. N. 126. The Bookes of Scripture which were receyved by those that receyved fowest had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were receyved by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contayned in every one of the Gospells Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospells and omitted in others part of the Doctrine of Christianity taught by the Apostles to Christians Besides what can you vnderstand by these words Pag 101. N. 125. For ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility And yet Charity Maintayned spoke of the Church of Christ as it was before any Scripture of the new TestameÌ„t was written which Church He proved to be infallible because at that tyme there could be no other infallible Rule or Judg which is a cleare aÌ„d convincing ReasoÌ„ And so I hope it appeares by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility 77. Sixthly You haue these words Pag 115. N. 156 Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and vniversall Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to vs. Therfore nothing but Scripture can challeng our belief Now I saie in like manner it is neither delivered in Scripture nor otherwise hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition that Scripture is not at this tyme joyned with some infallible Living Judg as once it was or that the Church was ever devested of that Authority and infallibility which it had or that God had provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of a Living and infallible Guide as you say or that Scripture alone without Tradition is the Rule of Faith Therfore none of these Points can challeng our belief My saying hath bene proved hertofore and yourself confess that you do not proue out of Scripture that with the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church but contrarily that they did remayne togeather for a tyme. 78. Seaventhly I take an Argument from your owne Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall Object of Faith or an Article which we belieue To which Maior I subsume thus But that Meanes by assenting to which alone I belieue all other Points must itself be assented to and believed for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not belieue Therfore Scripture alone cannot be the Meanes by which I come to belieue all other Points And seing no other ordinary Meanes to produce Faith can be assigned besides Scripture and the Church we must inferr that the Church is the ordinary Meanes to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently even according to your owne Doctrine she must be infallible Otherwise as you say of the Meanes to decide controversyes Pag 35. N. 7. We can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing 79. Eightly You confess that the Church erring in any Fundamentall Point ceases to be a Church and seing you also profess that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamentall you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not fayled vnless we belieue that she is infallible and cannot fayle And yet most Protestants graâ—â— that the Church cannot fayle our Saviour having promised tha◠〈◊〉 gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds in his Answer to the Preface Pag â—3 saith 〈◊〉 belieue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church â—â—th continued and never shall faile so long as the world endureth And we account is a sprophane Heresy to teach otherwise And Potter avoucheth that Christ hath promised the Church shall never fayle as you confesse Pag 277. N. 61. That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctour affirmes that God hath promised absolutely And yourself say Pag 106 N. 140. VVâ— yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceyue God hath promised so much By the way if according to Whitaker it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fayle and that according to Potter God hath promised so much absolutly yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and that you also conceiue our Saviour Christ hath done so how dare you say Pag 15. N. 18. The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand belieue to be a damnable Heresy Is it not a damnble Heresy to belieue that Christ can faile of his promise Besides since these Protestants profess and you also conceaue that God hath promised the Church shall certainly be assisted so far as not to erre in Fundamentall Points I aske whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God or no Whatsoever you answer for Protestants and yourself
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
say that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point least perhaps that proue to be Fundamentall Neither can you say that Protestants were certaine that the Points wherin they left the Church were errours For to omit the reasons which I haue already giuen here I must put you in mynd that diverse learned chiefe Protestants agree with vs in very many yea I may say in all the maine differences betwixt Protestants and vs And therfore your preence of so great evidence and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church is meerly voluntary and verball And besides I would know how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamentall Points and yet may be in danger to fall into such errours as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety 139. These maine dissicultyes being taken away your other Objections cited aboue are answered by only mentioning them The Question is not whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty as you vainly speak but whether the word and will of God Almighty be better vnderstood and declared to vs by Gods vniversall true Church or by any private person or particulat Sect. 140. If particular Churches haue been liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible What is that to the Anathemas of the vniversall Church granted to be infallible in fundameÌ„tall points in which whosoever disobeyes her puts himselfe in state of damnation And seing you confess that men cannot know what points be fundamentall it followes that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point for feare of leaving her in some fundamentall Article 141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itselfe to be infallible cannot be doubted seing even her enemyes belieue she cannot erre in fund mentall Points and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed without distinguishing betweene Points fundamentall and not Fundamentall which she could not doe without great temerity and injury to Faithfull people if she did not hold herselfe to be vniversally infallible Of which point Ch Ma P. 2. Ch 5. N. 20. P. 132. spekes at large in answer to a demand or objection of Potter and in vaine you say God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the limits of the Churches Power than the Church herselfe For the Question is only whether God will haue his meaning in Scripture declared by the Church or by every mans private spirit wit or fancy Besides God declares his sacred pleasure not only by the written but also by the vnwritten word 142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church Protestants must affirme who hold that she had all things necessary to salvation as shall appeare herafter and whosoever denyes it must grant that Christ had no Church vpon Earth when Luther appeared and that there is danger to leaue her experience makes manifest by the infinite multitude of different Sects and opinions wherof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of Heresyes 143. The Heresy of the Donatists did consist formally in this that the Church might erre or be polluted and by that Meanes giue just cause to forsake her communion For if without any such errour in their vnderstanding they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will they were indeed Schismatikes but not Heretikes as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith And yet Potter saieth they were properly Heretiques Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in generall that the Church may erre and be corrupted or polluted to say that in such a particular case she is corrupted comes to be only a matter of History or fact whether she hath done so or no but it is not a point of Faith and so is not of a nature sufficient to constiute an Heresy supposing as I saied it be once granted that she may erre For example the Donatists gaue out that the Catholique Church was defild by communicating with those who were called traditors The Heresy consists precisely in this Point That the whole Church may be corrupted and so give just cause to be forfaken not in that other Point whether or no the possibility of the thing being supposed de facto Catholikes did communicate with those traditours Since therfore it is supposed by you aÌ„d affirmed by Potter that the Donatists were heretiks their heresy must coÌ„sist in this that the Catholique Church spredd over the whole world might erre and be polluted And is not this the very heresy of Protestants And do they not pretend to leaue the Church vpon this same ground that she erred And this particularly is evident in those Protestants who say the whole visible Church before Luther perished The names of which Protestants may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. N. 9. Pag 161. and more may be read in Brierley Tract 2. Ca 3. Sect 2. And therefore I wonder you would say that Charity Maintayned had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to haue perished for many Ages That it is a fundamentall errour of its owne nature properly hereticall to say The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world is the Doctrine of Potter as we haue seene as also that Whitaker calls it a prophane heresy and more Protestants may be seene to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholique Church and that to say that Article is not true is blasphemy 144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article may haue true Faith in other Articles is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines and vniversally against all Catholikes to say That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation because his very heresy is a deadly sin And therfore to say the Church can erre in any one point of Faith is to say the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith which is an intollerable injury to God and his spouse the Church For if she may be in state of damnation by any culpable errour she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation namely the beliefe of that truth which such culpable errour denyes But more of this herafter 145. By the way How can you say N. 56. to Charity Maintayned That when it was for his purpose to haue it so the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all For where doth Charity Maintayned say That evidence of the Revelation is all in all Yea doth he not expressly teach Part 1. Chap. 6. N. 2. that evidence is not compatible with an ordinary Act of Faith and therby proves N. 30. that Protestants want true Faith 146. Object 14. Charity Maâ—ntayned in diverse occasions affirmes or supposes that Dr. Potter and other
Protestants teach that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and this you say diverse tymes is not true 147. Answer I will not say as you Pag. 76. N. 63. speake to Charity Maintayned I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned but contrarily I hope that the Reader if he be not a Protestant will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are even by the confession of our Adversaryes and how much it imports him to place his soule in the like safety 148. I haue already vpon severall occasions mentioned some passages wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation Now I will doe it more at large Potter Pag 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanisis as he calls vs the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them c. In proofe wherof he cites in his margent Junius D. Reinolds and sayes See the juagment of many other writers in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaotists grant it Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea Pa 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter we haue many other even of our greatest Adversaryes And I desire the reader to obserue well that here P 62 he saith To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteâ—med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholikes haue added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and vnwrâ—ten dogmaticall Traditions their Transsubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent Vpon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we haue cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therfore those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance are no Fundementall errours nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs and Protestants even transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours by the confession of our Adversaryes Pag 59. The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only clensed it from corrupt and impure qualityes If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the Old Church and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes without change of the substance the substance must be still the same that it was and that which was must be the same with that which is Pag 61. The things which the Protestants belieue on their part and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion Pag 60. In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion Pag 11. For those Catholique Verityes which she the Roman Church retaines we yield her a member of the Catholike though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholikes Behold we are members of the Catholike Church which could not be if we erred in any one fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholikes why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugnes himselfe while he speakes against vs nor distinguishing between vniversall as Logicians speake of it which signifyes one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholique as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spred over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and vpon that vaine conceit telling his vnlearned Reader that vniversall and particular are termes repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall or an vniversall Pag 75. To depart from the Church of RomeÌ„ in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation P 70. They the Roman Doctours confess that setting aside all matters controverted the maine positiue truths wherin all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to belieue and how to liue so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctours confesse that setting a side all matters controverted c. is very vntrue it being manifest that Catholikes belieue Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of Faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we haue all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledg and practise for vs to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants saith Pag 74. If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes he shall find in that which remaines little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes Pag 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse proue and the Objection which he rayses from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise
answer with Ch. Ma. that the Apostles set downe those Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which the Holy Ghost inspired them to deliver as you say they were inspired to set downe Credenda and not Agenda though these be of no lesse importance and necessity then those and you still begg the Question N. 75. that the end which the Apostles proposed was to set downe all necessary points of Faith The reasons which you giue N. 76. why some mysteries were omitted and others set downe can only be congruences of that which is done de facto and not arguments convincing that they could not haue done otherwise thē they did ād if they had set downe others and not these there could not haue wanted reasons for their so doing That the three Sages who came to adore our Saviour were also Kings is no new invention of Ch. Ma. but the judgment of the Ancient as may be seene in Cornelius a Lapide in Matth. Chap. 2. citing by name the Saints Ciprian Basil Chrisostom Hierom Hilary and Tertullian Isidore Beda Idacius The words which you cited out of Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr 2. Cap. 10. N. 10. that the Apostles were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime ād Principall Foundation of Faith make nothing for your purpos seing we dispute not whether any prime or principall foundation of Faith be left out for we acknowledge that the Creed expresses the Creator of all things and Redeemer of mankinde as also the Blessed Trinity Resurrection Catholique Church Remission of sinnes and life everlasting which of themselves are prime and principall foundations of our Faith if they be vnderstood according to the interpretation and tradition of the Church but whether any necessary though not prime and principall be left out and that may well be necessary which is not prime and principall as many parts are necessary to make a house which are not the prime and principall parts therof Yet indeed Gordonius in that 10. Chapter assignes the properties of the foundation of Faith that is of that Authority vpon which our Faith relies which he proves Chap. 11. not to be Scripture alone and C. 12. not to be the private spirit but Chap 13. to be the Church and he saieth the Apostles could not leaue out of their Creed in quo continentur omnia prima fundamenta Fidei this primum praencipuum Fidei fundamentum Where you see he speakes of the First foundations of Faith and more things may be necessary than the First foundations Besides we deny not but all necessary points are contained in the Creed in some of those senses which I haue declared hertofore which being well cōsidered particularly that Article of the Catholick Church will demonstrate that the Creed togeather with those means which are affoarded vs by tradition c for the true vnderstanding therof and vndoubted supplying of what is not contained in it is of no lesse vse and profit then if all points had been exprest which indeed had been to little purpos yea would haue proved noxious by the malice of men without the declaration of the Church for the Orthodox sense and meaning of them 62. You doe not well in saying that Charity Maintayned denyes this consequence of Dr. Potter That as well nay better they might haue given no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all and neither gives reason against it nor satisfies his reason for it For Charity Maintayned performes both those things neither of which you say he performes as every one may see who reads his N. 29. to say nothing that in good Logick the defendent is not obliged to giue a reason why he denyes a consequence it being reason sufficiēt that the opponent or disputant proves it not though yet indeed Charity Maintayned doth shew the insufficiency of the Doctors inference by giving the like consequences which confessedly cannot be good and yourselfe endeavour to answer the reasons of Charity Maintayned which he brought against the sayd inference of Potter You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue a proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your religion or indeed any sensible man can from his hart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly aprehende the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of those sever all supposed Creeds 63. Answer perhaps I shall say in the beginning that which will make your endeavour proue vaine You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been botter that is more effectuall to keepe the believes of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue But this ground of yours is evidently false For the effect or Fruit or Goodnesse or Betternesse so to speake of the Creed is not sufficiently explicated by being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy and in the true Faith but it implies also som particular articles which are to be believed in the beliefe of which that we may not erre the infallibility of the Church directs ād secures vs which office she might and would haue performed although this Article I belieue the Catholick Church directs ād secures vs had not beene exprest in the Creed yea that article ād the whole Creed supposes the infallibility of the Church to haue been proved ād believed antecedēter to thē that so we may be assured all the contēts therof to be infallibly true Now by the precise beliefe of that Creed which you propose taken alone we could not belieue any particular article of Faith because this precise act I belieue the Church to be infallible terminates in that one object of the infallibility of the Church from which I grant the beliefe of other particular objects may be derived when the Church shall propose thē but thē ipso facto we should begin to beleeue other particular objects and so haue an other Creed and not that little one of which you speake and besides which we are obliged to belieue other particular revealed Truths and therfor we must still haue some other Creed or Catechisme or what you would haue it called besides that one article of the Catholick Church as Charity Maintayned observes Pag 144. and consequently though that article of the Church haue that great and necessary effect of keeping vs from heresy and in the true Faith yet it wants that other property of a Creed
of setting downe particular Truths Whence it followes that that article alone cannot be a Creed as men speake of Creeds and particular points may be a Creed though that article of the Church were not exprest but presupposed and proved independently both of the Creed and Scripture in manner declared heretofore And here Dr. Potter should remember his owne doctrine and the doctrine of most Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles of Faith and therfor according to your manner of arguing this short Creed I belieue the Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall points would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresy and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we know and so either you must forsake the Doctor about the Churches infallibility in fundamētalls or he must reject your argument and both of you grant that you proue nothing against Ch Ma but only contradict one another You confesse that the Creed containes not Agenda why doe you not say It had been better to refer vs to the Church then to set downe in the Creed only Credenda which alone are not sufficient to bring any man to heaven and so make men thinke hey haue all in the Creede when the haue scharsly halfe Motrover If you respect only infallibility or being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy in your grounds neither the Articles of the Church nor the other articles as they are now in the Creed could haue so great commodity and no danger as you say speaking of the Churches infallibility as this one generall article belieue the Scripture to be infallible and therfor either you must take this one article as the best Creed which no man will ever grant or answer your owne argument by saying To belieue the Scripture is too generall an object and that a Creed or Catechisme must include some other particular objects or some such answer you must giue which will be easily turned vpon yourselfe Thus your N. 78. and 79. which goe vpon your first supposition that that Creed is the better that keepes the believer of it frō heresy c remaine confuted and the Syllogisme which you make proves a meere paralogisme For that petite Creed which you propose would be so farr from having greater commodities in order to the intent of Creeds then this other that it could be no Creed at all in that sense in which hitherto the ancient Fathers and all Divines haue spoken of Creeds and of summaries of Faith If you haue a minde to change the name and meaning of Creeds and to substitute some one proposition indeed I know no better in order to vse and safety then this The visible Church of Christ is infallible For this being once believed I may learne what is true Scripture what the sense therof what points be necessary in all occasions which commodity we cannot attaine by Scripture alone as hath been often sayd 64. You say N. 80. That having compared the inference of Ch. ma. and Dr. Potters togeather you cannot discover any shadow of resemblance betweene them nor any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some Body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnderstand you might avouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creedcontaines all things necessary therfor there is no need to belieue in God Neither does it follow so well as Dr. Potters Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherin are added diuers other particulars are superfluous For these other particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still containe all points of beliefe that are simply necessary These therfor are poore consequences but no more like Dr. Potters then an apple is likean Oister 65. Answer Dr. Potter argued that if the Apostles did not deliver in the Creed all necessary points they might as well haue given only that Article of the Church Which manner of arguing Ch. Ma. retorts and sayth we may rather inferr thus If the Apostles delivered in the Creed all necessary points what need we any Church to teach vs And consequently what need is there of the Atticle concerning the Church What need we the Creed of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Cathecismes wherin besides the articles of the Creed you haue divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours Thus Ch. Ma. who as you see doth not approue these consequences but expresly saith they are poore ones Which consequences while you also labour to disproue you doe but take paines for your adversary to your owne cost But at least you will say ther is no shadow of resemblance betweene them and that of Dr. Potters Yes ther is this resemblance That as the Doctour argues all necessarie points are not contained in the Creed therfor it had been as good or better to haue no Article of the Creed but that of the Church least that as he saieth Pag. 226. in setting downe others besides that and yet not all they may make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all So contrarily Ch Ma argues That if all other necessary points be contained in the Creed what need we the Church to teach vs or that Article of the Church which deduction might be made good by the Doctours feare least that if we haue that Article of the Church we may thinke that alone sufficient wherein he might be confirmed by the commodityes which you say are implied in the point of the Churches infallibility and so be carelesse in seeking any other particular object or article of Faith Which argument is like to that of the Doctours except only that indeed it is much better than his and may be made a kinde of demonstration by adding that in your grounds the article of the Church is not fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfor whosoever believes all the articles of the Creed if it be supposed to containe all necessary points of Faith may be saved though he belieue not that of the Church of which you say expresly in this your fourth Chapter N. 34.45 that it is not a fundamentall article and consequently not necessary to salvation yea it is further infer'd from hence that D. Potters argument is of no force seing it cannot be better to haue one only vnnecessary article of Faith then to haue divers fundamentall articles which no man denyes the Creed to containe and want that one not necessary or vnfundamentall point You say that you cannot discover any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude
a necessity of some body to deliver it Neither can I discover how this argument is not against yourselfe who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith and that the article which doth concerne the Church is none of those necessary points from whence it follow that the perfection of the Creed that is the beliefe of all necessary articles excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church For it implyes contradiction that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed and yet some other points should be necessary or that a point not necessary should be necessary Neither is this in your grounds to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed but only to exclude a necessity of believing that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church which you say N. 34. is not a fundamentall article and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke You add much lesse can I discover any shew of reason why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnder stand you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary therfor their is no need to belieue in God But who makes any such generall or causall inference Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary rather we must say the contrary Because it containes divers necessary points therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence the Creed containes all necessary articles togeather with some not necessary Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God with that of the Church since the one is the most necessary article of all others and the other in your opinion is not necessary The rest of your discourse in this Number serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary all other Creeds and Catechismes are superfluous but expresly called it a poore consequence and yet that it was as good as Potters which must be to this effect It is enough vpon the Doctours supposition not in truth or it is only necessary to belieue the article of the Church Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed 66. In your N. 81. you are pleased to spend words in vaine D. Potter says As well nay better they might haue given vs no article but that and sent vs to the Church for all the rest Ch. Ma. having first proved this inference to be of no force by way of superrogation grants the thing inferred not absolutely but thus farr which words you leaue out and yet they overthrow all that you say here that de facto our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church by her to be taught and by her alone because she was before the Creed and Scriptures and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed holy Scripture vnwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant as might haue been apparent if you had not omitted his first words Thus farr and not farther nor so farr as you would needs make him to haue pretended 67. Your N. 82.83 haue been answered already For if Dr. Potter meant that the article of the Church might be sufficient as containing all things necessary to be believed and that therfor we needed not the Creed Ch. Ma. sayth truly it is no good argument The Creed containes not all things necessary and that article of the Church is in rigour sufficient Therfor the Creed is not profitable or if the Doctour meant that the article of the Church were enough because the Church afterward would teach all things by Creeds or Catechismes c. that were but to leaue the Creed and afterward to come to it and indeed to tell vs that the Church must doe that which had beene done already and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed in all necessary points of beliefe you doe indeed overthrow it while you speake to Ch. Ma. in this manner Supposing the Apostles had written â—hese Scriptures as they haue written wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that doctrine which they did preach and done all other things as they haue done besides the compossng their simbol I say if your doctrine weretrue they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never coÌ„posed their simbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians and those that are not so but in steed therof had delivered this one proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good inteÌ„ts aÌ„d purposes the RomaÌ„ Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith who sees not that according to this discourse of yours the Apostles assuring vs that the scripture is infallible aÌ„d evideÌ„t in all necessary points de facto haue done as much service to the Church as you say they would haue done by that article I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible For this evidence of Scripture being supposed you teach that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church when the way is plaine of it selfe And if notwithstanding this your doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture alone the Creed is not vnprofitable and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church by giving vs both the Creed and Scripture So I say that one article of the Church togeather with the Creed had been more profitable and of greater service then that Article alone yea the Church as I sayd must haue delivered some Creed and it was a great service to vs that the Apostles had done it to her hand If you deny this you must deny the Creed and Scripture to be de facto more profitable then the Scripture alone and so the Creed shall be of no profit For I suppose if either the Creed or Scripture be not profitable you will say it is the Creed rather then the Scripture If you say the articles of the Creed being clearly but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture as Potter speakes haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed which therfor is of great vse I reply that by this answer you teach vs to confute your argumeÌ„t by saying that as Scripture is too large for a Creed or an abridgment so
destructiue of salvation being but matters of small consideration in their account Secondly That they can not be excused from Schisme who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall and of so small moment in which they disagree amongst themselves and in diverse of which many of them agree with vs against their pretended Brethren which is to be well observed Thirdly that Chillingwâ— had no reason Pag 11 to say to Charity Maintayned produce any one Protestant that ever did so that is affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation and I will giue you leaue to say It is the only thing in Question seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants that for which he sayth no one can be produced yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself that Errours in not Fundamentalls are not destructiue of salvation nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of a Church Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction N. 39. 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 Errour destructiue of salvation or in itselfe damnable For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it Here I obserue first If the doctrine of Protestanss whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall be free from all errour destructue of salvation or in itselfe damnable it followes that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation nor in themselves damnable which is the thing I intended to proue 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants that they are not destructiue of salvation he must also say of our pretended errours both because commonly of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs as also because as I sayd diverse of them stand directly with vs against the common course of the rest and finally because the reason of being or not being damnable is common to all Points not Fundamentall which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded which to doe if it be destructiue of salvation must be so for all such Points if not in none at all 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it you must say seing Luther and his followers did and do disturbe the peace and renounce the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall otherwise it had beene no Church they did and do that for which there was no necessity and for which they had no warrant and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme For the same reason also that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall you must grant that whosoever believes as the Church did and lives accordingly vndoubtedly shall be saved For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points and in particular in her 39. Articles which was her constant doctrine if she had any constant at all In particular your conscience tells you that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and much less that our Saviour Christ was true God and consubstantiall with his Father to say nothing of other Points of those 39. articles And is it not ridiculous to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours But you wrote for Ends If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them amongst whom salvation was so certaine and remember your words Pag 272. N. 53. it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient To which proposition if we subsume but it cannot be necessary to separate for avoyding that errour or attaining that Truth which to avoyde or attaine is not necessary to salvation therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly was guilty of the sin of Schisme 4. But yet you will still be making good that in these matters Protestants and yourself in particular haue no constancy but say and vnsay as may best serue their turne You tell vs the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable which agrees not with what you say of Protestants Pag 19. If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise in a matter of such consequence our Errours begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offenses against God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt And Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in the Communion of Protestants notwithstanding their Errours the justification hereof is not so much that their Errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errours among the conditions of their Communion And Pag 279. N. 64. The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe But why do I cite particular passages You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours Pag 158. N. 52. in these words If the cause of it an errour be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its owne nature damnable as if by negligence in seeking the Truth by vnwillingnes to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens â—ll opinion or any other worldly feare or
and salvation Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniversall Church 2. Since she is vnder paine of eternall damnation to be believed in some things wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment 3. Since we are obliged not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamentall Points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one Point least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall and necessary to salvation 4. That Visible Church even that Church which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed vnder Anathemas or Curses holding it as a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one Point in particular which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man in state of damnation wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger our salvation as likwise to remayne in her communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable 5. The true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command and require obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one vnless I know evidently that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far Gods Church can proceed then Gods Church herselfe Or to what Doctour can the children and Schollers with greater reason and security fly for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person or applying Scriptures against Her Doctrine or interpretation 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue fayled even in Fundamentall Points and suffered shipwrack of their salvation ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine or practise As to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages shee erred to death and wholy perished which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniversall Church within Africa or some other small tract of soile Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of the Church which cannot erre Fundamentally especially if we add that according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines One errour in Faith whether it be for the matter itselfe great or small destroyes Faith and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour is to affirme that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth 125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd N. 20. which I wish you had set downe as you found them that the Reader might haue judged how much they ought to weigh with every one who hath a serious care to saue his soule Sure I am they are growne stronger by your Objections as will appeare to any indifferent Reader 126. Your chiefest and as I may call it Fundamentall Answer is That I begg the Question in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points and that Protestants when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points vnderstand only That there shall be alwayes a Church to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls But I haue shewed hertofore that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants in fastening on them so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground in the sense which Protestants grant and which I haue proved to be true Which truth being supposed yourselfe are forced to favour vs so farr as to say Pag 163. N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greeke or the Roman Church which if we had done and set vp some setled certaine Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point And in the next N. 56. you say First we confesse no such thing thas the Church of Rome was then this Church vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose but only a Part of it Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could haue beene thus far secured this argumēt had some shew of Reason And P 150. N. 39. If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her but also learne of her what is Fundamentall and take all for Fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance wherof if I knew any one Church to he Infallible I would quickly be of that Church Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church But in the meane tyme you grant as much as will serue to overthrow all your owne Arguments in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points we haue all reason not to forsake Her And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point so that you make good both his Assertion and reason therof and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise by being quickly of that Church Heere I beseech you remember your owne words Pag 280. N. 95. May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted And then suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall what would you doe The same reason of not erring in Fundamentalls for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her would also oblige you nor to forsake her and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned alledged by him to proue that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in
vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will and reverence due to Gods Church and Councells and the many and great reasons which make for Her which is vnanswerably confirmed by considering that Protestants disagree amongst themselves and many of them in many things agree with vs which I must often repeate which could not happen if the reasons against vs were demonstratiue or evident and in this occasion your Rule that the property of Charity is to judge the best will haue place at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren who agree with vs As also your other saying Pag 41. N. 13. That men honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and truth may without any fault at all some goe one way some another which shewes that there can be no evidence against the Doctrine of the Church with which even so many Protestants agree but that Catholikes haue at least very probable and prudent reasons not to depart from the Church in any one point and that although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points not fundamentall the errour could not be culpable nor sinfull but most prudent and laudable And in this our condition is far different and manifestly better than that of Protestants who disagreeing not only both from the Church but amongst themselves also must be certaine that they are in errour which for ought they know may be fundamentall seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall wheras we adhering to the Church are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth And yourselfe say Pag 376. N. 57. He that believes all necessary Truth if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation 168. And then further vpon this same ground is deduced another great difference with great advantage on our side that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation to make choyse of the more certaine and secure part and must not be content with a meere probability if they can by any industry care study prayer fasting almes-deeds or any other meanes attaine to a greater degree of certainty For if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith necessary necessitate medij they cannot be saved even though their errour were supposed to be invincible as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants Wheras we being assured that adhering to the Church we cannot erre in any point of it selfe necessary to salvation for the rest we are sure to be saved if we proceed prudently and probably because the truth contrary to our supposed errours cannot be necessary necessitate medij as not being fundamentall Yea since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes of assurance that they erre not Fundamentally except the same which we embrace of believing the Church in all her definitions they are obliged vnder deadly sin to belieue all that she proposes for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article What I haue sayd that we proceede prudently though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours may be confirmed by an Adversary Dr. Jer Taylor who in his Liberty of prophesying § 20. N. 2. saieth that our grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leaue her in errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspitions but false are suppositions pious and plausible enough And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church he concludes These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name before Luther appeared And in express tearmes he confesses that these things are instruments of our excuse by making our errours to be invinc1ible which is the thing I would proue But here I must declare that when I say It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably and prudently It is still vpon a false supposition that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall though in reall truth there be no such distinction For we are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Church equally in all points and vse all not only probable but possible meanes to find the true Church and belieue her with absolute certainty in all matters belonging to Faith and in particular That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall without the beliefe of which truth Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible as hath been shewed at large 169. Thirdly I answer to your Objection That we absolutely deny the Catholique Church to be subject to errour either in Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points or that she can erre either Fundamentally or damnably in what sense soever And therfore wheras you say Pag 280. N. 95. The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours we vtterly deny that our Church can belieue or propose any errour at all And though those Catholique Verityes which we belieue were errours yet they could not be greater than those of Protestants speaking in generall seing in all the chiefest controverted points we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side who think themselves as good Protestants as those other from whom they disagree Besides in our Question respect must be had to the kind and not to the degree of errours that is nor whether the points be FundameÌ„tall or not FundameÌ„tall nor whether they which be Fundamentall be greater or less in their owne nature nor whether one not Fundamentall be worse than another not Fundamentall because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church another cannot otherwise you will not be able to assigne any Rule when the Church may be forsaken and when she cannor and it is damnable to professe against ones conscience any errour in Faith be it never so small which is the ground for which you say the Communion of the Church may be forsaken And lastly it is more wisdome to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes cannot erre fundamentally than by holding a less vnfundamentall errour expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours as I proved hertofore As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne that is which abstracting from the case of perplexity would be certainly a veniall sinne than to expose ones selfe to true danger of falling into a mortall offence of God 170. Fourthly I answer that as I haue often noted according to you and Dr. Potter it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to deny any point though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall being proposed and belieued to be revealed by God and so your distinction between Fundamentall and damnable Points as if the eâ—â—ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
which is not vniversally or necessarily true it being in rigor sufficient that they be not disbelieved This was the scope of Charity Maintayned to shew that to alledg the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points was nothing to the purPose for relief of Protestants who differ in such manner as what one believes to be revealed by God an other rejects and disbelieves and therfore though it were granted that Protestants did agree in all the articles of the Creed which thing I haue demonstrated not to be true nevertheless they could not all pretēd to be saved because some of them must be convinced to reject Divine Revelations But now for the Point in hand you know all Christians belieue Every Text of Scripture to be revealed by God are they therfore obliged to be still exercising an explicite act of Faith concerning them Rather of the two and speaking in generall and perse loquendo or ex natura rei if they be not Fundamentall articles it may so fall out that you are never obliged to affoard them any such positiue Assent and so you remaine obliged never to dis belieue them and yet never obliged explicitely to belieue them which is a true proposition against your vniversall contradictory Doctrine that No point to any man at any time can be necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme necessary to be believed 5. The rest of this Number as also your N. 12.13.13 for this Number is put twice 14.15.16 there is no N. 17. haue bene answered already C. Mist with all Divines supposes that no man can be obliged to belieue any point not sufficiently propounded as Dr. Potter also teaches and is evident to the very light of naturall Reason I beseech the Reader for confuting your N. 15. to peruse Ch. Ma. N. 3. And how do you tell vs in this N. 15. that the certainty you haue of the Cteed is from constant Tradition seing you profess that we haue no vniversall Tradition except that which delivers to vs the Scripture If you belief the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith as you say for vniversall Tradition and not for Scripture as you expresly confess you free men from obligation of reading or knowing the Scripture for all necessary points of belief which by this meanes they may find independently of Scripture and with as much certainty as you belieue Scripture which you profess to receiue from vniversall Tradition for which you also belieue the Creed And so you overthrow the most vniversall Doctrine of Protestants that Scripture is necessary and that not from Tradition but from it alone we must learne all things belonging to salvation And how did we heare you say Pag. 178. N. 80. that the Apostles did by their preaching while they lived and by their writings or Scripture after their death doe keepe men in vnity seing now you acknowledg a Tradition distinct from and independent of Scripture whereby we may be kept in vnity Now if we receiue the Creed from the Church we must belieue her to be infallible and that to oppose any proposall of hers is damnable though one belieue the whole Creed and therfore it is impertinent to alledg the Creed to assert vnity of Faith among Protestants while they differ in other points of Faith not contayned in the Creed and so Ch. Ma. saied truly that it was both fals and impertinent to say The Creed containes all necessary points of Faith But heere I must intreate you to consider how you can say as you doe in this place The certainty I haue of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not vpon Scripture Seing Pag. 149. N. 37. you say expresly Protestants ground their beliefe that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and goe about to proue their assertion true only by Scripture Can Protestants ground their belief that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and yet not ground vpon Scripture the certainty which they haue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls and so know all fundamentalls independently of Scripture 6. You say N. 18. That the last objection of Ch. Ma. stands vpon a false and dangerous supposition That new heresies may arise But with what conscience do you object this to Ch. Ma. who only repeats what Dr. Porter affirmed Pag. 126. about the arising of new Heresies which is so manifest that you expresly take notice of it and reject the Doctrine of the Doctor in that behalf I beseech the Reader to see Ch. Ma. where he demonstrates that seing the Doctor confesses that new Heresies may arise and that therefore the Creed was necessarily explained by other Creeds of Nyce c. so it will need particular explanation against other emergent Heresies and so is not nor ever will be of itself alone a sufficient Catalogue of all Points of Faith which deduction of Ch. Ma. is so cleare that you giue only this answer This explication of Dr. Potter and restriction of this doctrine that the Creed containes a Catalogue of all necessary Points of Faith whereof you make your advantage was to my vnderstanding vnnecessary And so you leaue your client and acknowledg the Argument of Ch. Ma. to be convincing As for the thing itself All that you object against D. Potter whom I now defend against you can receiue strength only from equivocation the thing itself being cleare That we admit no new Revelation but only new application or declaration of that which was revealed which application is certainly necessary before one can be obliged to belieue vnless you will haue men belieue they know not what Now whether you will call this application or declaration only a necessary condition sine qua not or parte of the formall object of Faith makes nothing to our present purpose but is learnedly handled by Catholique Divines Certaine we are that it is not the totall or principall but only a partiall and secondary object if it belong at all to the formall object of our Belief neither can any man imagine that the application to vs of Divine Revelations is the essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of Faith if by last complement and essentiall forme you meane that which is the chiefest and most principall which is only the Divine Testimony or Revelation and therefore you shew either ignorance or some worse thing in supposing that we make Divine Revelation to be the matter and sufficient declaration to be the forme of an Article of Faith No doubt but the Apostles declared what our Saviour had revealed to them but when inimicus homo superseminavit zizania and some began to doubt or broach errours against those revealed Truths a declaration was necessary to be made by that Meanes which God hath left to decide Controversyes in Religion as we saied hertofore about Canonicall Books of
except only by similitude analogy reduction or some such way For example we find not expressed in the Decalogue either divers sinnes as Gluttony Drunkennesse Pride Sloth Covetousnes in desiring either things superfluous or with too much greedines or divers of our chiefe obligations as obedience to princes and all superiours not only Ecclesiasticall but also Civill And the many Treatises of Civilians Canonists and Casuists are witnesses that divers sinnes against the light of Reason and Law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandements although when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull they may be reduced to some of the commandements and yet not so evidently and particularly but that divers doe it in divers manners Thus farr Charity Maintayned Of all this you thought sit to take no notice but only cavill at his words That Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstractes are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science or subject to which they belong against which you reply Yes if they be intended for perfect Summaries they must not omitt any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries Answer the Creed is a perfect summarie of those Truths which the Apostles intended to deliver therin Now for you to suppose that their purpose was to expresse all necessary points of Faith is to begg the Question in stead of answering the Argument of Charity Maintayned about the Decalogue of commandements though still I grant that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith in that sense which I explicated in my Observations 16. All that you haue N. 32.33.34.35.36.37.38 makes nothing against the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but confirmes it because you confesse that defacto there are many points necessary to be believed which belong not immediatly to practice from whence it followes evidently that Protestants doe but cosen poore people in alledging the Creed to that purpose for which they make vse or it as I sayd And besides seeing the particular points which Charity Maintaymed specifies N. 14. are either necessary to be believed by every particular person or at least by the whole Church which cannot erre in such points we must say the Creed doth not containe all necessary Articles of beliefe Morover you cannot be sure but that of those many important points which Charity Maintayned shewes not to be contained in the Creed some are fundamentall seing you confesse that you cannot tell which points in particular be fundamentall and so for ought you know they are fundamentall I obserue that you make mention of other particular points touched by Charity Mairtayned but omit that of Originall sinne because you doe not belieue it and yet Charity Maintayned N. 9. told you that S. Austine de Pec. Orig. Cont. Pelag. L. 2 Chap. 22. teacheth that it belongs to the foundation of Faith Lastly and Chiefly since the Creed alone without the Tradition and declaration of the Church cannot giue vs the true sense of itselfe and that in every one of its Articles are implied divers points not expressed which were afterwards declared by Generall Councels and which all are obliged to belieue it followes that even for those articles which you call credenda the Creed is not sufficient of itselfe To say nothing that for the maine point Dr. Potter and you yield vs as much as we desire to wit that the Creed containes not all Fundamentall points of Faith as Faith directs our manners and practice and so whatsoever you say of points meerely speculatiue imports little for the maine Substance of clearing Protestants from falshood and impertinency in alledging the Creed as they are wont to doe as if all were done which is required to Christians for matter of their vnderstanding and beliefe if they giue assent to the Creed though they differ in other articles of Faith which direct our lives 17. In your N 35. and 36. you make a florish about the Doctrine of Merit which is not a subject to be handled in this place wherof every one may find excellent Treatises in many Catholik Writers Only I say 1. That it is certaine Protestants haue alwayes supposed that they differ from vs in this point and therfor that our disagreement is in that Fundamentall point that God is a Remunerator as S. Paul saith and to this end only Charity Maintayned mentioned this point of Merit not to impugne the doctrine of Protestants in this place and therfor your discourse of this matter is plainly impertinent 2. That you doe not or at least will not vnderstand rightly our Catholik Doctrine about Merit which requires both habituall grace and particular motion of the Holy Ghost who therfor rewards his owne Gifts and you wrong vs in saying we make God a rewarder only and not a giver For this cause we acknowledge our workes of themselves or of their owne nature to haue no proportion with Grace and Glory and that by duty we are obliged to serue God as farr as he commands vs which hinders not but that by his Grace this very serving him may be meritorious a duty and yet a deserving as the servant merits a reward for the workes which he is obliged to doe which is much more evident seing de facto God hath not commanded all that he might haue exacted of vs in rigour 3. As else where so here you take vpon you to declare the doctrine of Protestants about merit without any commission from them who are so divived among themselves that it is impossible for you to speake as you thinke in behalfe of them all without putting yourselfe to maintaine contradictions For how can they pretend to any Merit or Obedience who teach that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements that all our workes are deadly sinnes that we haue no free will and the like 4. That you bring the very same arguments against the merit of Just men which your friend Uolkelius de Uer. Relig. Lib. 5. Chap 20. vrges against the Merit of our Blessed Saviour and therfore English Protestants who against you Socinians belieue that Christ merited and satisfied for mankind must answer your objections against vs. 18. To your N. 39. I say whosoever considers the words of Potter Pag 255. will confesse that he both approves and applauds the words of Dr. Vsher cited by you to which words I neede only answer that it is impossible that they who agree in points receyvea in the whole Christian world and yet disagree in any point of Faith be it never so small can with such a beliefe joyne holy obedience seing it is a deadly sinne and disobedience and as you confesse damnable in it selfe to hold any errour against whatsoever revealed Truth And so your discourse in the beginning of your next N. 40. falls to the ground it being impossible that agreement in Fundamentall points only can joyne men in one communion of Faith while they so differ in other matters as one side must be in a damnable
to bring one to open contradictions which you confess is very difficult and vnreasonable you should say impossible for a man in his right wits to belieue and so you forsake your two Dr. Vsher and Potter in this Assertion which you say N. 47. the one preached and printed the other reprinted Your second answer is that the latter part of Dr. Vshers words is but a repetition of the former But this answer destroyes the former which yet you do not deny to be good and agreeable to the meaning of the Doctor For if the Second part be a contradiction of the former as according to your first answer it is how can it be only a repetition therof And you tooke not a fitt example out of S. Athanasius his Creed to proue a meere repetition you I say who wickedly hold that Creed which indeed is a Catholique profession of the chiefest Articles of Christian Religion to be but an aggregate of Contradictions And yet that explication of S. Athanasius Neither confounding the Persons c was necessary against some Heresies that grāted a distinction of Persons only quoad nomina ād not in reality For your other vulgar examples to proue that those latter words may be only a repetition of the former you must remember that in matters of Faith all shew or shadow of contradictions or falshood must be carefully avoided as certainly it is a pernicious thing to giue occasion of believing that a damnable Heresie may stand with the belief of all necessary Articles of Faith and so a formall Heretique may be saved and nevertheless you do not deny but that Dr. Vshers words may suppose this Yet Charity Maintayned out of this poyson gathered this wholsome doctrine in the same N. 17. that if one believing all Fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followes that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed And so the Creed cannot be saied to containe all Points necessary to be believed which is the maine Point in hand You wonder that Ch. Ma. did nor espie an other contradiction in D. Vshers words like to that which He noted but if that other be a contradiction you say it is of the same nature with that which was observed and so it had bene to multiply things without necessity But enough of this which Ch. Ma. N. 17. professed to note only by the way which yet did either trouble you very much for the difficulty of his argument or else you are willing to take anie occasion of making a vaine shew of your skill in Logick and Metaphysick but with how many contradictions and little credit to yourselfe I hope the Reader hath seene by the confutation of all your Reasons 35. In your number 48.49 you are highly offended with Ch. Ma. as if he had said N. 18. that Dr. Potter patches vp a Religion of men agreeing in some few or one Article of beliefe that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest hold conceipts plainly contradictory which you say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his owne judgment but relates the opinion of others M. Hocker and M. Morton but especially even these men as they are related by Dr. Potter to the constitution of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world but also submission to his Doctrine in minde and will Now I beseech you Syr tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions agree with one consent in the beliefe of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation And so the truths wherin they agree amount to many millions c. 36. Answer First Ch Ma in the said N. 18. doth not ground his Assertion vpon the Doctrine of Hooker and Morton but vpon the principles of Potter and Protestants who hold that men may be members of the same Church if they agree in fundamentall Articles though they should differ in never so many other points and you cannot deny this not only to be true but the very ground for which they hold themselves to be brethren and capable of salvation notwithstanding their differences in matters not fundamentall From whence it followes that although it were granted that Protestants agree in many Points not fundamentall yet this is meerely accidentall and nothing against the Assertion of Ch Ma because if once you suppose them to agree in all fundamentalls and disagree in all other Points they must still be members of one Church For in this mattet more or fewer cannot alter their case so they keepe with in the compass of non-fundamentalls as contrarily though they were supposed to agree in those many millions which you mention and in as many millions more as you may please to imagine of points not fundamentall yet if they differ but in one fundamentall they cannot be members of the same Church and so your millions of such points can availe nothing either to constitute men members of the same Church or to hinder them from being so and therfor if you agree in never so many such points it helps you no more then if you agreed in none at all according to the ground and Doctrine of Potter and Model of his Church and therfor the saying of Ch Ma is very true who speaks reservedly in this manner According to this Model of Dr. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarcely one Point of Faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one or few Articles of beliefe who yet for the rest should be holding conceipts plainly contradictory so patching vp a Religion of men who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimera having the head of a man the neck of a horse c. For there is greater repugnancy betwene assent and dissent then betwene integrall parts as head neck c. These words if you read them with attention doe not affirme what is de facto but only goe vpon a supposition that is what a Church he would make if men agreed only in fundamētall points and for the rest should hold conceipts plainly contradictorie and therfor he vseth the word Model which signifies not necessarily what is but what would be if Potter proceeded according to his owne grounds taking them for a Model of his building Thus Ch Ma doth not wrong Dr. Potter in imputing to him the opinions of others but you misalledge Ch Ma that you may accuse him of calumny created by yourselfe 37. Secondly I answer if Ch Ma had spoken not vpon meere supposition but by way of affirmation as he did not if he committed any
seuerall Professions in poynt of Religion And as men ought not to be remooued from belieuing that there is a God though to our weake vndestandings there be presented Arguments touching his Nature Freedom of will Prouidence Preuision and the like of farr greater difficulty to be answered than can be objected against the jnfallibility of Faith so ought we not to deny the jnfallible Truth of Christian Faith notwithstanding those poore objections which this man and his Associates with equall impiety and boldness make against it And therfore both in the beliefe of a God and certainty of Faith Religion and worship of him we are to follow the certaine instinct of Nature and conduct of Piety not the vncertainty of our weake vnderstanding or liberty of will 5. For this cause as I sayd not only all Catholiques with a most Unanimous consent belieue profess and proclaime this truth in somuch as S. BouaueÌ„ture in 3. Dist 24. Art â— Q. 1. auoucheth Faith to be as jnfallible as the Prescience of God and Hâ—â—ensis 3. P. Q. 68. memb 7. affirmeth that Faith can be no more subject to falshood than the Prime Uerity but Protestants also and in particular D. Potter who Pag. 143. speakes clearly thus The chiefe principle or ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is diuine Reuelation made in the Scripture Nothing less than this nothing but this can erect or qualify an act of supernaturall Faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or at the most an acquired humane belief And Pag. 140. Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired Faith and infallibly in some sort assure the mynd of the truth of that which is so witnessed but the assent of diuine Faith is absolutely diuine which requires an object and motiue so infallibly true as that it neither hath nor can possibly admit of any mixture of errour or falshood Behold how he affirmes that Christian Faith doth more than only in some sort assure vs of the truth as Chillingworth will say it doth by an assent highly probable but that it must be absolutely diuine which he contradistinguishes from humane Faith making this not that absolutely certaine And indeed to litle purpose should Potter and all other Diuines require an Objest and Motiue jnfallibly true if likewise our assent to it be not jnfallible What auayles it that Diuine Authority be certaine and jnfallible in it selfe if in the meane tyme it remayme vncertaine whether such a Divine and jnfallible Authority interpose it selfe or witness any thing 6. But nothing can be imagined more effectuall and express against Chillingworth who Pag. 325. N. 3. saith That there is required of vs a knowledg of the Articles of our Faith and adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science is a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence Nothing I saie can be more cleare against this pernitious doctrine of Chillingworth than these words of Potter Pag. 199. Though the assent of Faith be more certaine if it be possible than that of sense or science or demonstration because it rests on diuine Authority which cannot possibly deceiue yet it is also an assent ineuident and obscure both in regard of the object which are thinges that do not appeare Hebr. 11.1 And in respect of the subject the eye of Faith in this state of mortality being dimme and apprehending heauenly things as through a glass darkly 1. Cor. 13.12 What could haue beene spoken more directly of the certainty and yet ineuidency of Faith against Chillingworth who both denyes that Faith is absolutely certaine and that certainty caÌ„ be without euidency as may be seene Pag. 330. N. 7. D Lawd Pag. 227. saith As for morall certainty that 's not stroÌ„g enough in points of Faith and Pag. 360. he directly affirmes that an jnfallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to saluation which is the very same with our Title of this Chapter And Pag. 142. he saith That falshood may be the subject of the Catholike Faith were no lesse then blasphemy to affirme and yet Mr. Chillingworths Booke where in this blasphemy is purposely taught is expresly approud as agreable to the Doctrine of the Church of England by euery one of the three Approbators who can best giue account by whose Authority they were induced to so pernicious and foule a fact 7. But why do I alledg particular Persons This of the fallibility of faith is opposd by all Protestants and particularly they who teach that we know the Scripture to be the word of God by the spirit or instinct of the Holy Ghost hold Faith to be infallibly true Thus Caluin Lib. 1. jnstit C. 7. Sect. 4. saith Petenda est haec persuasio ab arcano spiritus testimonio This belief that Scripture is the word of God is taken from a secret testimony of the spirit And afterwards Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferrd before all reason 8. And here is to be obserued that Chillingworth disagreeing from Protestants in this maine generall transcendentall point differs from them for euery particular in an essentiall attribute or perfection of Faith seing an assent only probable is essentially distinguished from an assent absolutely and infallibly certaine and so he opposes them in a higher degree then if he did contradict them in one or more chiefest particular Articles of faith or rather he cuts of at one blowe all the true belief of Christians by making it not certaine wherby men become no Christians as not belieuing in Christ with diuine certaine faith His tenet Pag. 367. N 49. that he who disbelieues one Article may yet belieue an other with true diuine faith is in no wise to be approoud but this his doctrine that Faith is fallible is farr worse as disbelieuing all and positiuely denying that certainty which is essentiall to diuine Faith and distinguisheth it from Opinyon or humane beliefe 9. This fundamentall truth that faith is absolutely certaine is very clearly deliuered in Holy Scripture S. Paule saith Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing or as the Protestants English translation hath The substance and in the margine the ground or confidence of things hoped for the euidence of things not seene All which signifyes a firme certaine and as I may say substantiall faith stronger than any assent only probable Thus holy S. Bernard Ep. 190. disputing against Abailardus who taught that Faith was but Opinion saith Audis substantiam non licet tibi in fide putare vel disputare pro libitu c Doest thou heare the name of substance it is not lawfull for thee in Faith to thinke or dispute at thy pleasure nor wander hither and thither through the emptynes
doth this proue that Faith common to all Christians is sufficient to saluation though it be but probable and not certaine I beseech you consider what you say In the matter of which the Apostle speakes the comparison was not betweene a strong and weake faith or belief of the same thing as our case goes but the question was of contrary perswasions one part judging that to be lawfull which the other held to be vnlawfull And therfor if you will haue your Objection rightly applyed or not to be clearly impertinent a man weake in Faith must be he who belieues Christian Faith not to be true nor the practise of it lawfull And doe you belieue such a weake Faith to be sufficient to saluation or that the Apostle will haue vs receyue them who are weake in Faith in that sense that is who belieue errours contrary to Christian Faith Your passing from Faith necessary to saluation to Faith of Miracles was an inpertinency but this your substituting to Christian Faith errours contrary to it hath too much of the Impious 51. Object 3. Pag. 326. N. 4. You goe forward in impugning the infallibility of Faith in this manner If this doctrine were true then seing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in any matter of Faith though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolu tely destructiue so long as it lasts of all true and sauing Faith which you are so farr from granting that you make it no sinne at all but only an occasion of merit 52. Answer First Your selfe must answer this objection In those whom Pag. 36. N. 9. you say Gods spirit may and will aduance beyond the certainty of euidence to the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know what they did not belieue And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ him selfe with their eares c. In the Apostles to whom you grant P. 329. N. 7. an absolute Certainty in respect of the things of which they were eye-witnesses In those who belieue as you Pag. 330. N. 8. pretend to do that it is infallibly Certaine that we are firmety to belieue the truth of Christian Religion In those who haue an absolute Certainty of this Thesis All which God reueales for truth is true which Pag. 36. N. 8. You say is a proposition euidently demonstrable or rather euident of it selfe In those who denying Christian Faith to be certaine yet pretend to be certaine that it is probable as you and your fellowe Socinians doe In all these Certaintyes I say you must answer what you object against vs. For seing as you say not any the least doubting can consist with Certainty it will follow that euery least doubting in the rehearsed truthes all which concerne matter of Faith though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of the belief of the Gospell and particularly of that part of which the Apostles were eye-witnesses of the certainty that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmiâ—y to belieue the truth of Christan Religion of the assent to this truth All which God reueales for truth is true which is a most fundamentall article of Faith of certainty that Christian Religion is probable all which I conceyue you will be farr from granting seing that euen according to the Doctrine of Socinians there can be no actuall sinnes meerly involuntary 53. But this is not all It must follow by your argument that euery Doubt taken properly though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts euen of the Probability of Christian Faith which being destroyed there remaynes no belief at all either certaine or probable of Christian Religion I sayd every doubt taken properly which is when our vnderstanding finding not sufficient reason to belieue one side more than another can only doubt of both without a positive assent to either as contrarily it happens in a probableact which assents determinatly to one part though not without feare that the contrary is true For it is cleare that such a doubt which abstracts from a positiue assent to either part is absolutely incompossible with a probable perswasion which positiuely determines to one side it being a manifest contradiction for the same act to abstract from both parts and yet to determine vs to one and so every such Doubt must be as you sayd against vs a Deadly sinne But why do I seeke after other instances than this most obvious and common to all Christians euen to Socinians You pretend to belieue that Christian Religion is true and consequently cannot judg at the same tyme that it is false Therfor this judgment Christian Religion is false though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of all faith where by you belieue Christian Religion to be true And so in vaine you sayd no least Doubt could consist with the contrary certainty as if your objection did touch only our infallibility of Faith wheras it ouerthrowes euen your belief that Christian Faith is true I do therfore end as I began and say you yea all Christians must answer your objection 54. Secondly directly to your Objection of a doubt resisted and involuntary and yet destructiue of infallible Faith because any the least Doubting caÌ„not consist with certainty I answer If he who doubts conceiue his doubt to be against that which he belieues by Faith and yet doth not resist such a doubt is voluntary and destroyes true Faith but makes nothing for your purpose who speake of a doubt resisted and not voluntary If he resist then he rejects the Doubt and so doubts not but retaines his former vndoubted assent with advantage of a new victory against the temptation to doubt and it is non-sense or implicatio in adjecto to talke of doubting and resisting at the same tyme. For if it be resisted it is not accepted nor is it a doubtfull assent or secunda operatio intellectus which affirmes or denyes by way of judgment but is a meere apprehensio or prima operatio of our vnderstanding representing to our mynd a doubt which by resistance is stopt from passing to a judgment as when Dauid sayd Psalm 52.1 The foolish man sayd in his hart there is no God these words there is no God affirmed by the foolish man were in respect of the Prophet represented only by way of apprehension and not of judgment or affirmation that it was so And Aristotle teaches that men may perhaps think they belieue express contradictions when indeed they only apprehend them without any assent or belief How easy then is it to conceyue that a doubt offered but resisted neither is nor can be destructiue of infallible Faith seing the resistance is cause that we do not doubt But now if we suppose that such a doubt
is not perceyved to be repugnant to our Faith one may assent to it because one may belieue contradictions not vnderstood to be such as dayly experience teaches but then that doubt is not voluntary as it stands in opposition with Faith in regard that no such opposition is represended to our vnderstanding and so it is no way destructive of Faith 55. I need not say any more for confutation of this Objection Yet I deeme not this an vnprofitable Demand vpon what ground you say Euery least doubting in any matter of Faith if it be infallible though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of true and saving Faith For one act formally excludes only that which is naturally opposite to it and therfor why should One involuntary and inculpable Act be destructiue of all sauing Faith If the Doubt be voluntary and culpable it destroyes I grant all true Faith both Habituall and actuall though euen in this case of sinfull errour you must say the contrary and so ouerthrow your owne argument you I say who Pag. 368. N. 49. teach that a voluntary and sinfull errour against one Article of Faith may stand with true Faith and belief of other Poynts and the contrary doctrine you tearme a vaine and groundless fancy and therfor in your Principles one may belieue with absolute certainty some Poynts V. G. that there is a God or that Christian Religion is probable which you pretend to belieue with certainty or the other examples which I specifyd aboue out of your owne doctrine and yet doubt of euidency in some other poynt of Faith and so you must grant that euery inuoluntary doubt is not destructiue of all infallible and certaine Faith as you assumed in your Objection which now your selfe must answer 56. Beside you speake very confusedly in affirming that euery least doubting though resisted would be destructiue so long as it lasteth of all true and sauing Faith without declaring whether you speake of Habituall or actuall Faith or of both Acts if we speake naturally and Philosophically do not directly and immediatly destroy the contrary Habit and therfor there is no reason why an involuntary doubt should destroy the Habit of Faith But you will say At least euery Doubt is destructiue of the Act of Faith because we cannot at the same tyme doubt of that thing which we belieue with Certainty whether such a doubt be voluntary or inuoluntary I Answer I haue sayd already that an inuoluntary doubt or a doubt resisted is not receyued in our vnderstanding and therfor cannot exclude the contrary certaine Act of Faith Yet if for declaring the matter we will make an impossile supposition that an errour inuoluntary ād consequently no sinne is receyued in our vnderstanding I say in that case it will not destroy the act of Diuine Faith morally but only physically by a naturall in compossibility or incompatibility in the same subject or vnderstāding it hinders the exercise therof which may happē not only by such a doubt as we speake of but also by other lawfull occasions as sleepe serious application to some business requiring a perfect attention or by a resolution not to exercise an Act of Faith in some circumstances wherin one knowes he is not obliged therto and yet these thinges and the like which for the tyme exclude an Act of faith must according to your Objection be damnable sinnes as destructiue of all both infallible and probable Faith because they are incompatible with the actuall exercise of any either certaine or only probable Assent In how many respects is your Objection proued to be weake and contradictory to your selfe 57. Object 4. In the same Pag. 326. N. 4. you say The same is invincibly confirmed by euery deliberate sinne that any Christian committs by any progress in charity that he makes For seing as S. Iohn assures vs our faith is the victory which ouercomes the world certainly if the faith of all true belieuers were perfect and if true faith be canable of no imperfection if all faith be a knowledge most certaine and infallible all faith must be perfect for the most imperfect that is according to your doctrine if it be true must be most certaine and sure the most perfect that is cannot be more than most certaine then certainly their victory over the world and therfor over the flesh and therfor over sinne must of necessity be perfect and so it should be impossible for any true believer to committ any deliberate sinne and therfore he that committs any sinne must not thinke himselfe a true believer Besides seing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith Certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity and so no man could possibly make any progress in it but all true believers should be equally in Charity as in faith you make them equall and from thence it would follow vnavoidably that whosoever finds in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever discovers in his Charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith 58. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your Objection at large though the full substance therof might haue bene exprest in very few words notwithstanding your repetitions inferences and inuolutions which I will indeauour to vnfold by degrees and lay open the weakness of your Argument in these following reflections 〈◊〉 In conformity to your owne Argument you must grant that your victorie ouer the world the flesh and sinne as also your Charity cannot be perfect because your faith being acknowledged to be only probable is supposed by your selfe to be imperfect since you say we must hold that our faith is perfect because we belieue it to be certaine And who would not detest such an imperfect faith if it were but for this cause that your Charity cannot be perfect with it if your owne Argument be good And heere you put me vpon a necessity to add a new Argument for the infallibility of Faith to all the reasons alledged aboue For seing men may by Gods assistance ouercome the world and be perfect in Charity both which according to you are measured by Faith it followes that they may haue perfect faith and if you can say as you doe If the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect much more I may say if the cause be imperfect the effect which neuer exceeds the perfection of the cause must be imperfect and so if your faith which you say is cause of our victory and of Charity be imperfect the effect must be imperfect And therfore seing the effect of victory and Charity in Christians may be and in many de facto is perfect it followes clearly that they haue not a meere probable but an infallible perfect faith 59. Secondly your Objection
and the Beatude which it propose a Fiction and Nothing 114. Wheras you say who sees not that many millyons in the world forgoe many tymes their present ease and pleasure vndergoe great and toylesome labours c vpon a probable hope of some future gaine and commodity I answer as aboue that such gaines are of the same kind with the labours and paynes I meane they are all naturall thinges and neither aboue the forces of our vnderstanding to apprehended nor of our will to desire and embrace but connaturall and in continuall vse amongst men who haue not much difficulty to doe what they see done by others and done by instinct and command of nature For if we sift into the roote of such toyles labours and adventures as you speake of we shall find it to be that innate and inbred desire which every creature hath to conserue it selfe in Being actuated by such meanes and industryes as it is best able to lay hold on If to forgoe ease and pleasure and vndergoe great and toylesome labours and adventure vpon great dangers be apprehended necessary for the sayd end it is no wonder if they be embraced as less evills which is no more than we see in irrationall creatures And to affirme that it is as easy to keepe the Commandements and obey the Gospell of Christ our Lord as to performe Actions proceeding from the common instinct of Nature is most injurious to the Grace and Merits of our Blessed Saviour And yet even in this your Objection vpon due reflection makes for vs against yourself because the common instinct of Nature to preserue it selfe is a thing Certaine and invariable proceeding from God the Author of nature and is the ground of that most reasonable and certaine Axiome that it is lawfull to resist force with force In which Respect he is not guilty of murther who did no more thā was necessary for his owne defēse according to which consideration your Argument proves that Faith necessary for all Christians and which is the Roote of all Piety Iustice and Salvation must be constant certaine and invariable as is the common Instinct of nature or Roote of all endeavours of creatures to preserue their being 115. I hope your Objection is fully answered by the former considerations Now I must aske with what ingenuity can you say of your Adversary He that requires to true Faith an absolute certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overcome our will c. Since he sayes no such thing as that that was the only Reason which might be given to proue the sayd Truth for he gaue that only incidently not excluding others and you see I haue given many more and amongst the rest that there is an obligation to belieue with an infallible supernaturall Assent abstracting from any relation to good works or victory ouer our will and affections And therfore that only is only your owne fiction 116. I need not answer your examples of believing there is such a Citty as Constantinople of giving credit to Caesars Commentaries or Salusts History which beside the impiety are impertinent since I haue proued that true Divine Faith being of a higher ranke is infallible supernaturall and not producible but by Gods Speciall Grace which Epithetons do not agree to the sayd Examples to omitt other Reasons alleadged hertofore In the meane tyme what a miserable thing do you make the Faith of Christians in being less strong and effectuall thā the belief of prophane storyes Wheras if the necessity of an infallible Faith be once believed men will seeke it and by degrees of Obedience shall by sure to fynd it even according to your owne Assertions 117. Lastly I will add That although it were supposed but in no wise granted that some particular person in some extraordinary circumstances might performe by a probable faith all that of which you haue preached yet since that would be but a rare and extraordinary Case and that the generality of mankind would perish for want of an infallible stedfast Faith it were injurious to Gods infinite Providence to imagine that he gives not to the generality of men Grace sufficient for such a Belief And this being once supposed I say further that I must de facto take away the supposition which I made and affirme that sufficient Grace being denyed to none and every one being obliged to choose the safer part in matters of this nature the Conclusion must be◠that every one is obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Articles of Christian Religion with an infallible certaine Faith 118. Which having been proved by Scripture Fathers the consent of all who belieue any Religion to be true the express confession of D. Potter the doctrine of other Protestants the absurdityes and pernicious consequences of the contrary Heresy the necessity of loosinge all Faith and Religion if Faith be not infallible the nature of Divine Christian Faith the Obedience it implyes the necessity of Gods speciall Grace to produce it the captivating of our vnderstanding vnto it the manifest insufficiency of his Arguments against it the turning his owne Objections and Reasons against himself his frequent and in a manner continuall contradictions his multiplyed changes of Religion caused by this his Doctrine the infallibility of Faith I say having bene proved by these and other convincing Reasons the next Demand will be what meanes Rule or judge our Blessed Saviour hath left vs on which this infallibility of Faith must be grounded And because Protestants pretend to agree in no point more than that Scripture alone is the sole Rule of Faith as containing evidently all thinges necessary to be believed the next Chapter shall be imployed in confutation of that assertion that so by degrees we may come to what indeed is that Authority vpon which Christian Faith must rely in order to vs. CHAP. II. ALL THINGS NECESSARY to be believed ARE NOT IN PARTICVLAR Evidently contayned in Scripture alone 1. IN no one Doctrine Protestants would seeme more vnanimously to agree than in this That all things necessary to salvation are contayned evidently in Scripture And yet it is certaine that they proue no poynt more slenderly nor declare more confusedly than this which they hold as the only foundation of the whole structure of their Faith and Religion For proofe of this my Assertion we need only put them to their proofes and desire them to state the Question aright which being done I dare confidently avouch that no judicious Reader will not instantly discover the impossibility of proving all things necessary to be contayned evidently in Scripture taken alone This will appeare by explicating two capitall words as I may terme them of my Title and their Tenet Necessary and Evident 2. For the performing wherof we are to take as a thing granted by all who pretend to the name of Christian that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ purchased by the effusion of his sacred
amongst themselves nor vvith vs Catholikes Socinians goe further and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it That the church may either leaue it of or at least can compell none to receyue it and in a vvord that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent (b) Volkel Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a SacrameÌ„t (c) Volkel Lib. 4. C 22. that it may be administred by lay persons (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptized (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme 40. As for the Matter and Forme of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit Divers of them expressly teach that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme but that some other liquid thing may serue and yet the scripture sayth Joan 3. V. 5. Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the Kingdome of God And Ephes 5.25.26 Christ loved the church and delivered himself for it that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life And for the Forme there vvant not that teach those vvords In the name of the Father c. not to be necessary About the Forme of the Eucharist they agree not some requiring no vvords at all other requiring vvords but in a farr different manner and meaning one from another as may be seene in Bellarm. Lib. 4. de Sacrament Eucharistiae Cap. 12. And for the Matter some Protestants as Beza Tilenus Bucanus Hommius teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist though it be evident in scripture that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine As also Beza Lib Quest Respons Vol 3. Theol Pag 364. saith that it is naevus in Ecclesijs c. A blemish in those Churches which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened and savours of Iudaâ—sme and yet he affirmes that Christ first blessed vnleavened bread and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel ad Artic 56. abjurat Pag 511. saith Christ indeed vsed vnleavened bread Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper By what authority then do they alter these things if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority What evident Text can they bring for these and the like alterations as not first washing feete c. And Volkel Lib 4. C. 22. affirmes that if one cannot drinke wine he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper as he speakes Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments N. 9. sayth thus Is the wine as it should be representing bloud not sacke whyte wine water or some other liquor but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley who Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 7. doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants in these words Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament Luther (a) To 2 Wittenberg Lib de Captivit Babilon Cap de Baptis Fol 75. affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred so the same be not in the name of man but of God Yea he sayth I doubt not but if one receyue Baptisme in the name of God although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God he is truly baptised in the name of God Also Brentius (b) In Catheches Cap de Bap and Zwinglius (c) To 2. Lib de vera falsa Religione Cap de Baptism sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To 2. Lib. de Baptis Fol 66 affirme that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme to omitt that Bullinger (d) in his Decads Decad. 5. Ser 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced And that Bucer in Matth. C. 26 teacheth recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist not to be necessary one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox in his Acts and monâ— Pag 678.679 affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body but omitted those words affirming yet further that The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist not in any words pronounced but in the breaking and giving of bread Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo comm C. de Caen Dom Pag 336. circa med post medium and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland f As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland printed at Rochell 1596. Pag. 189.190.191.192.193 41. The same I may say of the Forme Matter and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops Priests and others Degrees in the church All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments and yet not being determinable by scripture alone as is manifest both by the thing it self and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them we must infer that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture 42. Which is so manifest a truth that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants L. 4. C. 20. summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture saying we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition what more fundameÌ„tall article than this to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions Secondly the chief heads of Christian Doctrine and distinct explication of many things somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture Mark that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine Fourthly the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture Fiftly such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture Amongst which and the former he numbreth the Fast of Lent the Baptisme of infants of which he sayes it is not expressly delivered in scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express precept there found that they should do so and observation of our Lords day and afterward he confesseth that many other things there are which
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
For if you would be pleased to belieue or at least for the present to abstract from both parts and not suppose the contrary that beside scripture there are other Meanes to propose Divine Verityes your Demand looses all force it being no consequence that when there are divers Meanes to attaine one End we must either make vse determinately of one meanes alone or els not arriue to that End and therfor you must first suppose that there is no meanes but scripture to belieue Divine Revelations before you can make good this consequence Those many of whom S. Luke speaks and S. Luke himself intended to write the Gospell of Christ Therfor they were obliged to write all Poynts necessary to salvation For you will be instantly and easily taken of and answered that beside scripture there are other meanes for the sayd purpose at least in your Argument you must not suppose the contrary without any proof 113. 2. You demand Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians 114. Answer to this I haue sayd already that it is a Chimera for you to faine what in particular those many purposed to sett downe as also why S. Luke should be obliged to write the same particulars which you may dreame those men should haue set downe And your Demand must be answerd by yourself in regard you cannot deny but that many things were and are most certainly believed among Christians which are not expressed in S. Lukes Gospell for example those particulars concerning our B. Saviour which S. Luke sets downe only in the Acts of the Apostles about his Ascension Apparition to S. Stephen to S. Paule c as also those mysteryes which are omitted by S. Luke and written by the other Evangelists and other poynts once believed by Christians and written by none of the Evangelists nor any other Canonicall Writer as S. Iohn Cap. 21. witnesseth You do therfor both begg the question in supposing that those many of whom S. Luke speaks must of necessity haue set downe all necessary points as if all such points must be written by every one who vndertakes to write the Gospell of Christ and also deliver a manifest vntruth as if Christians did not most surely belieue many more Articles than are set downe in S. Lukes Gospell or in the writings of those others if they intended to write the same things which he did 115. Your 3. Demand is Whether the whole Gospell of Christ and every necessary Doctrine of it were not surely believed among Christians 116. Answer Every Doctrine necessary to salvation was surely believed by Christians but to suppose that every thing believed by Christans is written in S. Lukes Gospell or in the whole Bible is to begg the question For you know it is the thing which we deny As also it is certaine that many things surely believed by Christians are not written in S. Lukes Gospell nor in any of the Gospells as I shewed in answer to your second Demand You demand 117. 4. Whether they which were eye-witnesses and Ministers of â—he word from the beginning delivered not the whole Gospell of Christ 118. Answer you either begg the Question if you will still suppose that they delivered in writing the whole Gospell that is all the Doctrine of Christ and also vtter a falshood it being most certaine that they delivered and others believed more then is written as S. John witnesseth Or else you speake nothing to the purpose if you meane only that they delivered in writing some things of the whole Gospell which no man denyes but you should proue that they delivered all necessary Poynts 119. 5. You demand Whether he does not vndertake to write in order these things wherof he had perfect vnderstanding from the first 120. I answer this as I did the last If you meane that he vndertakes to write in order All things necessary wherof he had perfect vnstanding you both begg the question and say more than is true If you meane that he vndertaks to write only some of these things wherof he had perfect vnderstanding from the first you speak not to the purpose of proving that he writes all necessary Points of Faith You demand 121. 6. VVhether he had not perfect vnderstanding of the whole Gospell of Christ 122. Answer Who can assure you that he had perfect vnderstanding of every Miracle which our Saviour wrought But suppose he had perfect vnderstanding of the vvhole Gospell in the largest sense that you can imagine vpon this if you vvill say that he vvrote all Points of vvhich he had perfect vnderstanding you both begg the question and deliver a manifest vntruth as I haue proved 123. 7. You demand VVhether he does not vndertake to write to Theothilus of all things wherin he had been instructed 124. Ansvver vndoubtedly no and I must still repeate that you begg the Question by supposing it and vtter an vntruth by affirming it For to omitt other poynts S. Luke himself in the very first Chapter of the Acts instructed Theophilus in severall things not expressed in his Gospell for example of some circumstances of our B Saviours Ascension his giving the Faithfull at that tyme most holy documents an Angell declaring to them that he vvas to come in judgment a punishment of Judas the Traytour not expressed in the Gospell He burst in the middes and all his bovvels gusshed out Act. 1.18 his sending the Holy Ghost to say nothing of other Points contayned in the Acts in the Gospells of S. Matthevv S. Mark and S. John and in other Canonicall writings not expressed by S. Luke in his Gospell of all which we cannot imagine Theophilus so famous and principall a Christian to haue bene ignorant 125. 8. You demand VVhether he had not bene instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ 126. Answer Certainly he was and in many more Points than were necessary But you begg the Question if you suppose that S. Luke wrote all things wherin Theophilus had bene instructed as also vtter an vntruth as I haue proved or speak not to the purpose if you meane only that he wrote some of those Poynts 127. 9. You demand VVhether in the other Text All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things 128. Answer This were an excellent way of proving if it were as good as it is easy To proue what you would haue by the only asking whether it be so which is indeed nothing but to begg the Question Our Question is whether S. Luke haue set downe all necessary Poynts and you proue it by only asking whether it be not so You know we say that neither the Gospell of S. Luke nor the whole scripture alone containes in particular all Points necessary to salvation and as for the word All in S. Luke it cannot signify vniversally and absolutely all things neither
in England subscribing to the 6 of their 39 Articles That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation in effect subscribe to nothing but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter 5. For the present I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited First Pag. 66. N. 33. where you teach that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith which is a strang kind of speach Philosophers tell vs of a materiall and formall Object of a totall and Partiall of an Adequate and Inadequate and some other Divisions of Objects but of an instrumentall Object I never heard Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding vnless it be apprehended by that act and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith vnless it be believed by an act of Faith and if it be believed by an act of Faith as a thing revealed it is a materiall Object of Faith and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object serves only to confute your owne doctrine and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith Besides who ever dreamed that either the divine Revelation which is the formall Object of Faith or the things revealed which are the Materiall Objects therof can be called according to Philosophy the Instruments of an act of Faith Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument 6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture Against which words I haue these just exceptions That they are against yourself who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme which declarations are not extant as also that they are against this doctrine of yours that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith For I aske whether or no the Apostles taught the Churches that the Bookes or Epistles or Prophecyes written by Canonicall Authors were the word of God If they did then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance which is the reason why we belieue that other mysteryes delivered by them are to be believed by an Act of Faith If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God Yourself speaking of the CaÌ„onicalness of some scriptures say 142. N. 28. If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation as on the other side you teach in the same place that if the Apostles delivered it it was to be believed as an article of Faith 7. 3. In your Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. which I cited aboue you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation And how then say you Pag. 116. N. 159. that men might reject the scripture God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are conâ—ayned Will you make vs belieue that not to be damnable which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable namely not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith and belief in the Belief wherof Christians of all professions agree with one consent Or how can you say in the same Pag. 218. N. 49. Is it not apparent that no man at this tyme can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the Church seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture And Pag. 116. N. 159. you say It were now very strange and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the Bookes and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that How I say can you write in this manner who teach that scripture is not a materiall object of faith which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin of which Christ is one Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed aÌ„d another acknowledged not to be revealed I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable not to belieue the authority of scripture aÌ„d yet that it is resonable for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it which were not only vnreasonable but impossible also as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true 8. But in this last place Pag 116. N. 159. you haue a subtilty expressed in these words There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eighâ— King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor no sâ—â—ne at all God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue Therfor as an Executor that should performe the will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will which indeed is so so I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles This is your discourse which deserves detestation rather then confutation Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it 9. First then wheras you say There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason I answer that you speake very confusedly and imperfectly and either vntruly if your words be so vnderstood as they may make any thing to our present Question or impertinently if they belong nothing to it I say therfor if the belief of one thing be necessary for the belief of another
delivered by word or writing and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such which sufficiency of proposition is required in all articles of Faith fundamentall or not fundamentall before one can be obliged to belieue them 27 Since then according to your Doctrine we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God yea and may reject it It remaines true then as I sayd in the last Chapter Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith although we should falsly suppose that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed For what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith to read any Point in that Booke which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue Let vs now come to another errour of yours 28. Your second errour I find Pag. 144. N. 31. where you write thus If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they dâ—livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstaÌ„ding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both h o and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes And Pag. 145. N. 33. you say the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures 29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine and receyved as Divine Truth 1. It must be delivered constantly 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles and these conditions you require for every part therof For you say the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part and then you add expressly this limitation I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine Divine Truth and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills did frame that opinyon out of some apprehended Revelation for example In viam gentium ne abieritis Matth 10.5 Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not or Matth 15.24 I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel or some other and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth yet they were deceyved in that Poynt because it wanted the other conditions of constancy and Attestation of Divine Miracles and consequently your doctrine must be that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost might faile in some of them and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion 30. If this be so what certainty can we now haue that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation Ephes 2.20 haue not erred in writing as then they erred in speaking And in particular whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which Pag 137. N. 21. You cite out of S. Matth 29.19 Goe and teach all Nations And so at this present we cannot be certaine whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching or in their second of preaching the Gospell to Gentils If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost they could erre in neither without it in both and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted and how can you be certaine that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre You grant Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing Seing therfor you teach that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing which God required them to belieue and commanded them to practise according to your owne saying we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing What the Apostles spoke or preached they might haue written it is your owne saying Pag 54. N. 7. Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written neither had it bene more or less true or false by being committed to writing than if it had bene only spoken or preached and so if they could erre in speaking we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe some errour proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice or some other cause as you speake Pag 137. N. 21. This I may confirme by what you say to Ch Ma Pag 84.86 D. Fields words I confess are somwhat more pressing and if he had bene infallible and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Booke In which words I note that although D. Field had bene infallible yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing for you speake of what he hath written in his Book and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible and actually to haue erred as you say they did why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings 31. If you answer that it belongs to Gods providence not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing and conveyed to posterity I reply by this very Reason it is cleare that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers especially since you pretend that this errour of theirs is
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
contradictions and falshoods then are found in those Bookes of Scripture which both Catholikes and Protestants admit Now say I in this case what shall Reason doe being left to itself without any Authority beside itself The Motives and humane Testimonyes of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity are only probable as you affirme Arguments to the contrary seeme convincing and such as haue bene held for Principles among the best Philosophers as I shewed vpon another occasion and therfor Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentils and we treate of the tyme before one is a Christian who theÌ„ will oblige such a Man being in possession of his Liberty to accept vnder paine of damnation an obligation positively to belieue and to liue according to the Rules of Christian Faith only vpon fallible inducements in opposition to so great seeming evidence to the contrary 76. Neither can you in your grounds say that Miracles wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion ought to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason For you teach that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men for avoyding of which delusion it may seeme wisdome and safest to sticke close to the Principles of Reason wherby though he may chance to be deceyved yet he cannot be accounted rash imprudent or inexcusable 2. you must suppose that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone for if they surpass probability you grant Christian Faith to be infallible and then the difficulty still remaynes how one can be obliged to imbrace meere probabilityes and such as you confess are not able to rayse our mynd to a higher and more firme assent than they themselves are against and as I may say in despight of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilityes 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question which is not to treate how farr one may be obliged by Miracles either evident by sense to those who see them wrought or asserted and delivered by an authority believed to be infallible as we Catholikes belieue Gods church to be but we speak of Miracles wrought in great distance of tyme and place from vs commended and believed only by your fallible tradition which therfor leaves this doubt whether one can be obliged to preferr fallible humane tradition confessedly insufficient to cause a certaine assent before seeming evidence and certainty of naturall Reason And it seemes easy to demonstrate that Protestants if they will be constant to their owne assertions and proceedings must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason For it cannot be denyed without great obstinacy and impudency that in all ages there haue bene wrought frequent great and evident Miracles by the professours of the Catholique Religion recorded by men eminent for learning wisdome and Sanctity who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment and testifyed not by one or a few or many single persons but by whole Communityes Cittyes and Countryes by meanes of which Miracles Infidels haue beene and are at this day converted from the worship of Idols to know the true God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ and yet notwithstanding all these Miracles which are able to convert Pagans Protestants will not conceiue themselves obliged to belieue that such Miracles were wrought or that those Articles of our Faith in confirmation wherof they were wrought are true And why Because they seeme contrary to naturall Reason as the Reall Presence Transubstantiation c Seing theÌ„ they reject Catholique Doctrines confirmed by Miracles in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason how can they pretend Reason to receaue Scripture and the contents therof for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God the Creation of all things out of nothing the Resurrection of the Dead and other such Articles which they make shew to belieue and are no less yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholikes which they reject Wherfor our finall Conclusion must be that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions is to vndermine and ouerthrow Christian Religion 77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted as some haue bene lost and in particular Protestants affirme even the Vulgate Translation which anciently was vsed in the Church to be corrupted as also the Greek and Hebrew your Tradition cannot secure vs what in particular is or is not corruted because it delivers only as it were in gross such or such Bookes but cannot with certainty informe vs of all corruptions additions varietyes and alterations as occasion shall require Thus some both Catholikes and Protestanis teach that Additions haue been made even to Pentateuch others assirme the same of the Bookes of Josue Kings and Hieremy and the like Additions might and perhaps haue been made to other Bookes at least we cannot be sure of the contrary if we consult only your fallible Tradition neither can we know by it that such Additions proceeded from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost And as Protestants are wont to say that a very great number of Catholique Doctrines which they vntruly call errours crept in by little and little as you also say Pag 91. N. 101. so what certainty can they haue that corruptions in Scriptures yea whole Apocriphall Bookes may not in tyme haue gained the repute of being Canonicall As for corruptions in Scripture you speak dangerously in saying Pag 141. N. 27. As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farr from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other and made to speake as they do for the advantage of those meÌ„ whose ambitioÌ„ it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority And afterward I would aske how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these plaâ—es which arealledged to proue the infallibility of the Church seing it is possible and not altogeather improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible wheÌ„ they had the government of all things in their owne hands may haue altered them for their purpose Do not these words giue scope for the enemyes of Christian Religion to object that we cannot be certaine of any Text of Scripture whether or no it be incorrupted For as you say it is not altogeather improbable that we haue altered some places for our purpose of proving the infallibility of the Church so you may say we haue done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief and the like may be sayd of all others who teach different Doctrines that they will incline to corrupt Scripture in favour of their severall Sects Neither can we haue any certainty whether this which may be done hath not bene practised and
Churches Governours Pastours and Parents as Judges of Controversyes in Faith and Religion and the only Meanes to propose to vs all Points necessary to be believed Certainly if we were obliged to heare and obey them in so eminent a degree as we are not we ought also to belieue them to be infallible even according to your owne Assertion repeated in divers places of your Book I wonder you and other Protestants will be still thrusting vpon vs this worne-out Objection without taking notice of the Answer which hath bene so often given and which shewes that your Objection tumes against yourself And as for our obligation to seeke the Church none can speake more home than Dr. Field one of the chiefest Protestant Divines of England in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Lor◠Archbishop teaching expressly that there remaineth nothing for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Church of the Living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment 85. Fiftly I know not whether you speake more vntruly or perniciously or giue me leaue to speake truth more ridiculously when Pag 105. N. 139. you say to Charity Maintayned You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentalls Dr. Potter sayes That the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifyes no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever Thus you And thus the sons of men and children of darkness take pleasure to seeme witty by jeasting sacrilegiously in things belonging to God The Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts because if she erre in such Points she is no more a Church Why say you not thus All men are infallibly true because if they erre they cease to be true in that wherin they erre Mr. Chillingworth is immortall and cannot dy because if he dy he is no more Mr. Chillingworth and happy had it bene for him and others seduced by his sophistry si non fuisset natus homo ille Thus also you may say That God when he threatned and decreed that Adam should be mortall and dye if he transgressed his command at the same tyme even after his transgression he was immortall and could not dye because if he died he should no more be Adam To be immortall in common sence signifyes a certainty not to dye and not ridiculously that if he dy he doth exist no more and so not to exist implyes the direct contrary of being immortall and supposes one to be mortall and therfore to say The Church is infallible because if she erre she is no more a Church comes to this that she is fallible which is directly contrary to infallible For as we sayd of immortality so in proportion infallibility must signify an assurance not to erre and the Church to be infallible in Fundamentall Points must signify that she cannot erre in them and so not loose her being by such errour which is plainly opposite to your saying that she may erre and therby cease to be You erre therfore in not distinguishing between Actum primum and secundum or Potentiam and Actum as Philosophers speake To say a Church is infallible or cannot erre or be destroyed signifyes some antecedent either extrinsecall or intrinsecall Principle or Power preserving Her in such manner as that such a Principle cannot actually consist with errour And therfor you speake not like a Philosopher in saying The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentalls passing ab actuad potentiam and proving that men are infallible because de facto they erre not wheras men may chance not to erre and yet not be infallible You haue heard Whitaker saying We beleeue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and never shall faile so long as the world indureth and we account it a prophane Heresy to teach otherwise What comfort I pray can it be to soules that the Church may erre in Fundamentall Points yet so as she remaynes no more a Church which Whitaker accounts a prophane Heresy Every one conceaves infallibility to be a favour and Priviledge You tell vs the plaine contrary That infallibility in the Church for the most principall and necessary Points of Faith doth not signify that she may not erre in them but that if she erre she must inevitably perish or dye by such a damnable errour and become as it were the Divells martyr by dying for so bad a cause Which surely is no favour or Priviledge especially if we call to mynd an other Doctrine of yours that Errours not Fundamentall are compatible with the Being of a Church which is a greater favour than to be destroyed And therfore how can infallibility in Fundamentall Points in your way of explication that if she erre in such Points she ceaseth to be a Church be a Priviledg or Favour seing no body will say that fallibility and errour in Points not Fundamentall which yet destroy not the Church are favours Other men conceaue that these Propositions are convertible Whosoever is infallible cannot erre and whosoever cannot erre is infallible But you contrary to all other mens Logick say the Church is infallible because she may erre damnably and desperatly and therby loose her Being 86. When Protestants teach That the Church cannot perish but is infallible in Fundamentall Points they make a difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and teach That she may faile and de facto hath fayled in these but cannot faile in those But you in opposition to all others maintayne That the Church may erre both in Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Articles from whence every one would inferr that she is absolutly fallible in both and infallible in neither or if infallible in either in both And yet you haue found a devise that though she erre in both those kinds of Articles she is infallible in one of them only that is in Fundamentall Points And fallible in Points not Fundamentall A rare piece of Philosophy To erre damnably and Fundamentally and yet be infallible Yea which is most admirable to be infallible because she erres most deeply and be fallible because she erres in matters of lesser moment Beside other Protestants put a difference between the vniversall Church is infallible ād cannot erre in
Fundamentall Points but that Particular Churches ād Persons may But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction The vniversall Church with you is infallible because if she erre Fundamentally she ceases to be a Church as also Particular Churches if they erre Fundamentally cease to be Churches and the same I say of particular Persons and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants and to your owne words also Pag 106. N. 140. We yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceaue God hath promised so much Now you will not say that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall and particular Churches which difference cannot stand with this your speculation that the Church is only in fallible in some points because if she erre in them she ceases to be a Church which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches and persons 87. Hence it is that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally as you do but vpon some antecedent Principle namely the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost Dr. Potter in particular whom you vndertooke to defend speakes very clearly to this purpose Pag 105. in these words The whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it For such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head and so dissolue the Body and leaue Him no Church which is impossible Mark that he sayth not as you doe The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article because therby she should cease to be a Church but contrarily seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church and leaue Christ no Church she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it With what modesty or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter as if he did not disagree from you The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words Pag 153.154.155 The Church saith he Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit that it never totally failes or falls of from Christ For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke Matth 16.18 that is on Christ the only Fundation Cor 3.11 that the gates of Hell whether by temptation or persecution shall not prevaile against it And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility he cites Bellarmine de Eccles Lib 3. Cap 13. saying That the Church cannot erre is proved out of Scripture Matth 16. vpon this rocke I will build my Church and then goes on in these words The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed For then our Lords promise here Matth 16.18 of Her stable edification should be of no value Obserue this And what he hath afterward in these words The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is Fundamentall and necessary It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold First The Church may erre in not Fundamentall but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts wheras you say she may erre in both 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points is because she is firmely founded on the rocke and if she did faile our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers and of this the promises of Christ assure vs. And this as I sayd is the common doctrine of Protestants Wherby it appeares that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points because she should perish by every such Error but contrarily because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost never to erre in such Points she shall never be destroyed in direct opposition to you who say that she may erre and by erring be destroyed What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine in this manner The Church is infallible or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points because if she did so erre she should cease to be a Church But she may cease to be a Church Therfore she is infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentalls You should in ferr the direct contrary Therfore she may erre and is not infallible I beseech you of what value should our Saviours promises be according to your doctrine That the Church should not erre at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith No. You say she can erre in such Points In what then Only in this admirable worke that if she did erre she should be sure to pay for it by perishing For say you To say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implyes contradiction and is all one as to say the Church while it is the Church may not be the Church This then is the effect of Gods Promises that that shall be which implyes contradiction to be otherwise that is Gods Power and Promise shall only effect that two contradictions be not true as that if some Living sensible creature be a beast he shall not be a man Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God and his holy Promises and Providence Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke assisted by the Holy Ghost that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her only to this effect that if she erre she shall perish that is the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined prevaile against her What foolish impietyes are these Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises That there must be alwayes a true visible Church knowen and discernable from all false ones and therfore of one denomination That even according to Protestants this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points we must belieue Her to be infallible in all even according to your owne grant as I haue shewed out of your owne words And so finally we must conclude that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination and infallible in all Points of Faith as well Fundamentall as not Fundamentall 88. And by what hath bene sayd I confute and retort your saying Pag 150. N. 39. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to
and reall necessity therof You perceaving the impossibility are necessitated to say it is not of importance but needless They in actu exercito you in actu signato shew it impossible to be done You I say teach it to be needless because you find it to be impossible as Protestants would make the world belieue that Miracles are ceased because they can worke none which if they had hope to do they would soone chang their Doctrine as you and they would quickly teach a Catalogue to be profitable and necessary if you could make one The truth is such a Catalogue is necessary in the principles of Protestants who deny the Authority of the Church and yet being indeed impossible to them as we see by experience in their differences and your express confession it shewes in what desperate case they and you are But heere I must by the way note a contradictiō of yours We haue heard you say Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to an other is not so Which is repugnant to what you say Pag 13◠N. 20. Points Fundamentall be those only which are revealed by God and commanded to be preached to all and believed by all For if Fundamentall Points be such only as must be believed by all it is cleare that they which are necessary to be believed not by all but by some only cannot be Fundametall You also contradict Potter who Pag 21◠teaches that by Fundamentall Doctrines we meane such Catholique verities as are necessary to be distinctly believed by every mark every Christian that will be saved 7 Now That such a Catalogue is needless you would shew as I sayd because who soever believes the Scripture which is evident in all necessary Points and in many which are not necessary shall be sure to belieue all that is necessary and more 8. This evasion I haue confuted allready yet in this particular fit occasion I must not omitt to say somthing 9. First then in saying a Catalogue is needless you contradict other Protestants to whom I suppose you will deferr so much as to thinke their opinion not voyd of all probability and consequently your owne not to be certaine which were only to any purpose For if the contrary chance to be true and a Catalogue be really necessary your Doctrine denying both that it is necessary or that it can be given must be very pernicious to soules deceaving them with an opinion that that is neither necessary nor possible which yet is absolutely necessary for their salvation In the very sentence or Motto before your Booke you alledg Casaubon saying Existimat ejus Majestas c. His Majesty judges that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great and therfore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement than carefully to distinguish between necessary and vnnecessary things and that all endeavour be vsed to procure an agreement in things necessary Do not these words signify both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and vnnecessary Points And yet we haue heard you say that it is both impossible and vnnecessary in direct opposition to your Motto And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King that your Booke is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction vpon that blessed Doctrine where with you haue adorned and armed the frontispice of your Book and which was recommended by King James as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome A strang cure by that meanes only which you hold to be vnnecessary and impossible And here by occasion of mentioning Casaubon I cannot omit to declare for a warning to others that I haue it vnder the hand of a person of great quality and integrity that that vnhappy man finding himselfe in danger of death dealt with the sayd worthy person to procure the presence and help of a Catholick Priest but his intention being discouered or suspected he was so besieged by his wife and a Protestant English Minister that it was not possible to be effected A fearfull example for all such as check or choak the Inspirations of the holy Ghost and procrastinate their conversion till they finde that common but terrible saying when it concerns Eternity to be true He who will not when he may shall not when he will 10. 〈◊〉 by this reason of yours there is no necessity of giv 〈…〉 even a Definition or Description of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall or of even mentioning such a distinction seing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction know when they offer themselves in particular and you are sure not to misse of them by believing all that is cleare in Scripture Especially if we adde your words Pag 23. N. 27. That Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdome and Necessity And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as Matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are And yet all learned Protestants harpe vpon nothing more than vpon this distinction of Points Fundamentall and vpon the definitions or descriptions of them as particularly may be seene in your client Potter Pag 211.213.214.215 which is a needless paynes if this your evasion be good and solid 11. Thirdly Though one be obliged not to disbelieue any Truth revealed in Scripture when it is knowne to be such yet he is not bound to belieue explicitly all such Truths For by this Fundamentall and not fundamentall points are distinguished as Potter P 213. saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Card Perron Replique Liur 1. Chap 10. calls the Faith of adherence or non-repugnance may suffice to wit an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared Now if I cannot sever or distinguish these two kinds of Points I shall either be obliged to know absolutely all and every Truth contained in Scripture which is a voluntary and intollerable obligation or none seing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamentall Articles without the actuall and express knowledg wherof I cannot be saved And this difficulty is encreased by the doctrine which you deliver Pag 195. N. 11. That there is no Point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Seing then no point of Scripture can at any tyme in any circumstances be disbelieved it is necessary at all tymes in all circumstances to be believed And much more this must follow if we cannot know what points be Fundamentall except
belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition doth he S. Irenaeus not plainly shew that the Tradition he speakes of is nothing els but the very same that is written Nothing but to belieâ—e in Christ To which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge 51. Answer First this your Answer though it were never so true leaves Charity Maintayned in possession of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus against the Title of your Chapter Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes to witt that Tradition and therfore not only Scripture is such a Rule For dato non concesso that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible and guide vs by Tradition as by Gods vnwritten Word You teach here N. 126. That all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells And yet you say That they which had â—ll the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes and be testifyed by diverse witnesses So say I it had not beene superfluous but very profitable that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture and by the infallible Tradition of the Church which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written For as Scripture was not superfluous though it found another infallible Rule before it which also even according to Protestants remained for some tyme with it namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited so Tradition neither was nor is superfluous though there be another infallible Rule Scripture with it 52. Secondly When you say That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of is nothing els but the very same what is written nothing but to belieue in Christ to which whether Scripture alone to them that belieue it you should add and vnderstand it be not a sufficient Guide I leaue to you to Iudge I must answer as you N. 142. speake to Charity Maintayned I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what you meane by believing Only in generall that he is the Messias and that without believing him none can be saved Or else do you vnderstand by believing in Christ all that hath beene taught by him If you meane the first only you say nothing to the purpose because other Articles are necessarily to be believed beside that of Christs being the Messias If you meane the second that is all Points taught by our Saviour and necessary to be believed as you N. 159. say S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias as even there you declare that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion wholly and entirely that is the matter of the Gospell you know we deny that for all such truths Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide and to take the contrary without proofe is to begg the question Nay even for that of believing in Christ I wonder you would say that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide in the Principles and proceedings of Protestants seing you know that He knowes and the whole world knowes how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ some believing him to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father Others denying it Some saying he satisfyed for our sins others denying it as you know the Socinians doe So that take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ will terminate in the meere Name of Christ and the Title of Saviour with endless contentions about the Thing signifyed by that Name and Title Put then all your Assertions togeather the strength of them will end in this contradiction that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word of God yea though he doubt or reject it being proposed by other Parts of the Church as you expressly say in the same N. 159. 53. But you say S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say if God had not given vs the light of the Sun we must haue made vse of candles and torches If we had had no eyes we must haue felt out our way If we had no leggs we must haue vsed crutches And doth not this in effect import that while we haue the Sun we need no candles While we haue our eyes we need not feele out our way While we enjoy our leggs we need not crutches And by like reason Irenaeus in saying if we had had no Scripture we must haue followed Tradition and they that haue none do well to doe so doth he not plainly import that to them that haue Scripture and belicue it Tradition is vnnecessary Which could not be if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition 54. Answer You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus and moue others to vndestand them as you please if you will first suppose your owne doctrine to be true that is if to begg the question may passe for a good Rule to interpret Authors If I say you suppose or take as granted that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation you may compare it to the Sun to Eyes to leggs and the Church to Candles to feeling out our way to crutches yea if she might erre to the Synagogue of Satan and lastly to Nothing because indeed every errour in Faith destroyes Faith and Church But if you conceaue as you ought that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs that by Her Eyes or Testimony we belieue Scripture to be the word of God as yourselfe grant that by Her subsistence as I may say it hath beene conserved and subsists you will be forced to invert your similitudes and interpretation of S. Irenaeus and say do not his words import that if candles should faile the Sun will last and as the Prophet David saith Psalm 18. Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum that is in manifestatione Ecclesiam saith S. Austine If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way as the disagreements of Protestants shew they cannot we may see by the eyes of the Church by which we did first see Scripture itselfe and then do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import the direct contrary of that which you inferr That to them who haue Tradition as all they must haue who belieue Scripture
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
errour and the same Heaven cannot containe them both wherby your Question why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation Is clearly inverted and retorted by saying Why should not any errour exclude any man from the Churches communion which will depriue him of eternall salvation The Arguments which you bring in this Number and N. 41.42.43 to proue that every one of the foure Gospells containes all points necessary to be believed haue been confuted at large hertofore 19. To your N. 44. and 45. I answer that Dr. Vshers words are as vniversall as can be whÌ„ he speakes of Propositions which without all controversie are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world And if you will needs haue his other words the sevrrall professions of Christianity that hath any large spread in any part of the world to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited I am content vpon condition that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his As for the thing itselfe Cha Ma names places of large extent in which the Antitrinitarians are rife and I feare he might haue added too many in England Holland and other places wher Heresy raignes and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker and Morton teaching that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity is not a Fundamentall heresy destructiue of a true Church neither doth the Doctor disproue them Paulus Ueridicus I grant names the B. Trinity among coinopista not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such but as in Truth it is necessary for all or rather indeed he affirmes nothing but only as they say exempligratia by way of supposition which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe For thus you cite his words To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda Articles as you call them vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity which haue any large spread in the world These Articles for example may be the vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of Persons the Immortality of the soule c Where you see he speakes only exempli gratia or by a may be according to the Doctrine of Catholiks without regarding whether or no in the opinion of Dr. Vsher the denyall of the Trinity exclude salvation But it is both ridiculous and vnjust in you to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned which he touched only by the way and in order to Dr. Vâ—shers words For concerning the thing itselfe Protestants who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not I feare hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fuÌ„dameÌ„tall errour seing so many old heretiques haue denied the Truth of that Article and you with your Socinian brethren doe the same at this day and pretend many texts â—f Scripture for your Heresy If 〈◊〉 had at hand Paulus Ueridiâ—us perhaps I could discover somewhâ—t more against you For I remember he shewes how according to Dr. Vshers discourse and grounds divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church and he finds so much matter against the Doctor as it is no wonder if he in his short examination tooke no notice of the contradiction which Charity Maintayned touches as he Charity Maintayned takes not notice of all the advantages or other contradictions which perhaps he might haue found and which Paulus Ueridicus observes but that was not the ayme of Ch Ma in his answer to Potter 20. In your N. 46. you say There is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Which N. 47. you declare or temper in this manner Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as vnreasonable as to doe the thing which is saied to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seeme contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to belieue them or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little with some empty vnintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed not direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose Faith the propositions are offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world Thus you after your fashion involuing things in obscurity that one cannot penetrate what you would say but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected As for the thing it selfe There is no doubt but that men may belieue things which in themselves are contradictions wherof we need no other proofe then to shew that it happeneth so to yourselfe if you belieue what you affirme even in this matter wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction But when men say with one voyce that we cannot assent to contradictions it is to be vnderstood if they be apprehended as such and therfore it might seeme needlesse to spend many words in confutation of this heresie as I may call it against the first principle of Reason Yet because your reasons may perhaps seeme to some to proue more since even in your explication or modification you saie only perhaps and may be of that which all the world holds for certaine and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason and because if they be well considered they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion and in regard this is an age of Academiks and Sceptiks who willingly put all things to dispute wherby vnder pretence of freedome in Reason they take liberty against Religion as also to shew how little reason you had to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish to shew a Socinian wit and lastly because by this occasion I may examine some other points I will both confute your reasons and shew that you contradict yourselfe 21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect how he who resolves Faith into Reason so much extold by him that he relyes theron as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church or Calvinists vpon the private spirit or on the Grace of God which both Catholiks and Protestants against Pelagius belieue to be necessary for every Act of Divine Faith how I say this man doth now so extenvate Reason that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish as he makes it we might better belieue our dreames than our reason wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason and consequently Faith it selfe which in
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
those of Ch. Ma. who specifyed not necessary Doctrines but vsed the signe some which abstracts from necessary or not necessary and in that sence is more illimited and may be better divided into diverse members or parts and so more capable of being compendiated than if it were more simple and individed and as it were of it self a compendium before it could be compendiated Now I pray you tell the Doctor of Divinity that he speakes that which is hardly sense and demand of him these necessary Doctrines of which you say the Creed is an abridgment which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfore it is not an abridgment of them Thirdly yourself in the beginning of this Chapter N. 1. and 5. say that the Doctors Assertion is that the Creed is a Summary of all those Doctrines or Credenda which all men are bound particularly to belieue and this you endeavour to make good through the whole Chapter Now you must ask yourself whether the Creed be a Summary of these Doctrines or Credenda which are in it or which are out of it c. and so apply your Argument against yourself and the Doctor In this very place you say if it be called an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense But if this would be sense I am sure your objection can haue none For then againe aske of yourselfe whether it be an abridgment of such points of the Faith as are in it or as are out of it and you will find that every syllable of your owne objection must be answered by yourselfe Besides is it an abridgment of all or of some part of the Faith You will not say it is an abridgment of all the Faith seing you confesse that much of the Faith is not in the Creed namely those points which you call agenda and you tell vs it cannot be an abridgment of such articles as it cōprehends not If then it be not an abridgmēt of all articles of Faith and yet is an abridgment of Faith as you confesse it must be an abridgment of some Articles of Faith which are the very words and proposition of Ch. ma. which you impugne and say it is hardly sense Fourthly Having told vs that all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprized in the Creed you add for this is the proper duty of abridgmēts to leaue out nothing necessary and to take in nothing vnnecescessary Now you grāt that there are in the Creed some articles not necessary or Fundamentall therfor the Creed or the composers therof faild in the proper duty of abridgments or if you deny this consequence you must deny your owne words that the proper duty of abridgments is to take in nothing vnnecessary or finally deny that which you expresly grant that in the Creed there are some points vnfundamentall and so heape contradiction vpon contradiction On the other side Agenda are necessary and yet are not contayned in the Creed and so neither part of your proper duty of abridgments is true The truth is you abuse the word necessary not distinguishing betweene necessary to be believed and necessary to be set downe in the Creed For neither is it necessary that all necessary points of beliefe be exprest in the Creed as you confesse Agenda are not nor is it necessary that no point vnfundamentall or vnnecessary be set downe therin only it was necessary for the Apostles to set downe all that which the Holy Ghost moved them to expresse with which it is also necessary for vs to be content notwithstanding your topicall humane reasons to the contrary But what answer shall we giue to your objection Truly it is so easy a taske that I scarsely judge it necessary to giue any at all For what is more easy then to say The Creed is an abridgment of some Articles not because it doth not containe them but because it containes them not at large with explanations proofes illustrations deductions sequels conclusions and the like For if one set downe at large all that he pretends to abridg he is not an Abbreviator but an Amanuensis or Copist And in this I may alledge your selfe who in this very Chapter N. 31. say Summaries must not omit any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries though the Illustrations and Reasons of it they may omit Thus then the Creed may be an abridgment of some Articles both fundamentall and not fundamentall without any such non-sense as you are pleased to object But surely it will seeme somewhat strange to say as you doe Those Articles that are in the Creed it comprehends at large and therfor it is not an abridgment of them as if nothing can be set downe in the Creed or any other writing clearly and particularly but it must be set downe at large which is to take away all briefe and compendious treatises and therefore as I sayd your selfe must answer your owne objection Out of what we haue saied is answered your N. 66. wherein you and the Doctor must either suppose and begg the question in supposing that all points of simple belief are contayned in the Creed or els his Argumēt is of no force at all 56. To your N. 67.68 the Answer is very easy that all those interrogations of Potter which you call plaine and convincing Arguments are nothing but plaine beggings of the question and suppose that the whole way to heauen all Articles of Faith the whole Counsell of God all necessary matters are contained in the Creed which you know is the thing controverted The Doctour should first haue proved that the Creed containes all necessary points and then haue vrged those his interrogations May the Churches of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it c. Doe not you and the Doctour acknowledge that men cannot come to heaven by believing only the contents of the Creed but must also belieue Agenda and besides the Faith of both these kindes of Articles they must keepe the commandements and so the Doctour must answer his owne interrogations and he himselfe was guilty of what I haue sayd I meane that all his interrogations could be to no purpose vnless first it be proved that the Creed containes all necessary points For this cause Pag. 222. after he had in a concionatory way made his interrogations he sayth All that can be replyed to this discourse is this that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it Now Char. Maint Pag. 143. N. 25. and in the following numbers having answered this and other objections and some of them in his second part Chap. 7. through divers numbers
denieth him in all seing there is one only Christ the same in all The Magdeburgians in Praefat Centur 6. They are Anti-Christs and divels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostates Mort Lib 1. Apolog. Cap 7. Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must deny them the name of Christians Yourself Pag 23. N 27. speaking of Uerityes contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture say He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so Which is more than Catholique Divines teach who affirme that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith by an humane opinion not purelie for Divine Revelation and so you also must vnderstand that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture but if he belieue them it must be with mixture of some other reason and so fall farre short of Divine supernaturall Faith Wittenbergenses in Refutat Ortodox Consensus As he who keepeth all the Law but offendeth in one is witness saint Iames guilty of all So who believeth not one word of Christ though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed yet believeth nothing and is damned and incredulous Schlusselburgh Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin Art 1. Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat He corupteth the whole doctrin who subuerteth it in the least Article Most truly saied Ambrose E pist ad demetriadem he is out of the number of the Faithfull and lot of Saints who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth Calvin Ephes 4. V. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he had saied Christ cannot be divided Faith cannot not be parted Perkins in Explicat Symboli Colum 512 Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue As I saied of your words so I say of these that they containe more than Catholiques affirme and to giue them a true sense they must be vnderstood that he faileth and erreth in as much as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith Spalatensis contra Suarem C. 1. N. 7 Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction and consequently it is no true Church no not visible in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers Tertullian de praescrip Cap 2. saieth Heresies are to destroy Faith and bring everlasting death And Cap 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians S. Cyprian Epist 73. saieth that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle Heretiks are called Anti-christs S. Austine Enchirid Cap 5. Christ in name only is found with any Heretiks S. Chrysostom cited by Ch Ma N. 33. in Galat 17. saieth that the least error in matter of Faith destroieth Faith Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subverted For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith is wholy corrupted But enough of this You do but cavill and yourself know you doe so in saying to Ch Ma that there is not one Catholique Divine who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith For you cannot be ignorant that when this Question is propounded by Divines it is necessarily vnderstood of culpable error otherwise it could be no Question And whereas you say There is not one Catholique Divine who delivers c. Your self did reade in Ch Ma S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner 2. 2. Q. 5. à 3. For having propounded the Question Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith may retaine Faith of other Articles in his Conclusion he saieth It is impossible that Faith even informed or Faith without Charity remaine in him who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith although he confess all the rest to be true What say you to this Is not S. Thomas one Catholique Divine or is he not one instar omnium And yet he both proposes and answers this Question supposing not expressing that he speakes of culpable errour and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques as also Ch Ma in this very Number expresly specifies Protestants whom you know we belieue to erre culpably against many revealed Truths You goe forward and speak to Ch Ma in this manner They Catholique Divines all require not yourself excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring party to be one of those which God vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue But you are more bold than well advised in taking vpon you to know what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous in telling Ch Ma what his opinion is I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching that all Divines hold that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith must be revealed publiquely Who is ignorant that many great Divines teach that he were properly an Heretique who should reject or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such by never so secret meanes Do not yourself heere cite Estius whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime verity For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation Do you not remember that Zacharie was punished for his slowness in believing a revelation made privately to him and of a particular object You speak very confusedly when you say They Catholique Divines require that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue For all Catholique Divines agree that it is Heresie to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church though other wise it be not comāded to be believed ād you do not only teach through your whole Book that it is damnable to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God but you saie further that whatsoever one is obliged not to disbelieue at any time at the same tyme he is oblged to belieue it which latter part though it be false as I haue shewed heretofore yet it shewes that you must affirme that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue positively and explicitely all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God so that this
your saying is not only confused but false in the opinyon of Catholique Divines and much more in your opinyon 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours I haue proved in the Introduction that Charity being a supernaturall Habit infused only by the Holy Ghost and not acquired by any naturall Acts cannot be knowne by humane experience to be present or absent and being a loue of God aboue all things cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas 2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp where he cites S. Aug saying Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur absente autem continuò tenebratur à quo non locorum intervallo sed voluntatis aversione disceditur 46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C Ma Though you cry it vp for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I find it a serious graue prolix and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main Question between vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue or rule or a necessary condition of Faith which you know we flatly deny and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation 47. Answer What Reader will not conceiue out of your words that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag as you express by Achilles Gorgons head insulting c Whereas he without any evenleast commendation saies positively that S. Thomas proves his conclusion first by a parity with Charity which is destroyed by every deadly sinne and then by a farther reason which there he setts downe at large in the words of that holy Saint 2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3. and is comprised in this Summe Ad 2. A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason to wit for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of Faith Your pride is intollerable in despising the Reason of S. Thomas as a serious graue prolix nothing and your saying is ridiculous that he beggs the main Question between vs about the infallibility of the Church For how could he begg that Question which when he wrote was granted and taught by all Divines But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument which consists in this that if one assent to one Object for some motiue or Reason and assent not to another for which there is the same motiue or reason it appeares that he Assents to this other not for that motiue common to both but for some other particular Reason Now though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church because de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths yet his argument is the same though it be applied to Scripture And therfore the same holy Doctor 1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2. without mentioning the Church saieth Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt and we haue heard yourself saying Pag 23. He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so Yea D. Lawd P. 344. saieth expresly We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith for the same formall reason in all namely because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word an by his Churches Ministration 48. To this āswer which I haue confuted you add to vse your words a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius vpon 3. sē 23. dist § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas to be a vain fancy that he saieth The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed Which is sufficient for our main Question that according to this Doctor the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church which must certainly and not only probably haue Divine supernaturall Faith which is absolutely necessary to saluation necessitate medij Besides his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique is not sufficient for salvation and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved His words are Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere sed Fidei partem aliquam Fides enim significat aliquod integrum omnibus suis partibus completum vt sit idem Fides simpliciter Fides Catholica Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem Catholicum constituat Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse Mark Fidem amisisse juxta Apostolum 1. Tim. 1. Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still This discourse I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas being vnderstood as I declared formally that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes whatsoever that meanes be 49. To the other argument of S. Thomas taken from a parity of faith with the Habit of Charity which is lost by every deadly sinne Estius doth not answer and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated And this Argument is stronger than perhaps appeares at the first sight For Faith hath no less connection and relation to the object of Faith than Charity to the object of Charity And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne whereby God is grievously offended so we must say of the habit of Faith that it is not compatible with any error whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected and as it is essentiall to Charity as long as it exists to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God so Faith must of its owne nature beate downe and reject all errour against the Divine Testimony or Revelation that both for will and vnderstanding we may say
48 p. 880. The commandements may be kept with the grace of God but not without it J. n. 26. p. 20. 2. No communion in Divine service can be lawfull with those of a different Faith c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 VVho leaves to communicate in what all agree leaves the communion of all And in what all otherwise devided doe agree must be true n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members and consistent with all sorts of Heretiques n. 67 p. 501 sequen In what sense a Community can oblige it selfe c. 11. n. 47 p. 680 Private Confession averred by Protestants to be necessary and that otherwise Christ had given the power of the eyes in vaine c. 2 n. 17 p. 128 It is a Divine precept c. 16 n. 17 p. 943 Consequences probably only deduced out of points of Faith are not points of Faith c 10 n. 21 p. 646 Contradictoryes not vnderstood to be such may be be beleeved c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes Chill Doctâ—ine is discussed disproved and the bad consequences of it shewed c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. sequentibus The Councell of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholique Religion J. n. 10. p. 7. Generall councells if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning Generall Councells and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholiques c. 7. n 40. p. 481. sequen Also from the Doctrine of I hil and Potter concerning the same n. 160. P. 579 sequen aÌ„d n 48 p. 48â— Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be receaved by vniversall tradition independent of Scripture and that the principles of Faith may be knowne by it independent also of Scripture and yet teaches that only Scripture is receaved by vniversall Tradition and that it is necessary to know the principles of Faith c. 13. n. 5. p. 791. Proved that it cannot be a sufficient Rule of Faith seeinge Potter graunts it needs a new declaration for emergent heresies n. 6. p. 792. D Doctrine may be taught effectually and yet resistibly c. 12. n. 79. p. 766. The Donatists had a Bishop at Rome to seeme true Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome c. 15 n. 11. p. 894 Their hatted to Catholiques imitated by Protestants n. 12. p. 895. They were justly sayd to be confind to Africa having no where else any considerable number n. 36. it should haue been 35. p. 916. which is put 816. They had no Divine Faith c. 16. n. 19. p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptization Ibid A doubt properly taken destroyes probability c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected vpon and embraced it is not vnvoluntary n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt Ibid E Errours in themselves not damnable cannot be damnable to be held c. 14. n. 44. p. 877. 878. The Evangelists did not themselves put the Titles of their Gospells c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists alwayes in the Church c. 12. n. 100. p. 783. Eucharist altered in matter and forme by heretiques c. 2. n. 40. p. 147. 148. Never held necessary by the Church to be given to Infants n. 207. p. 273. If in the Eucharist Christ be present Protestants expose theÌ„selves more to sinne then Catholiques if he be not present c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395. Evidence of things contained in Scripture diversly vnderstood e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. seq In what sense Catholiques may affirme that all things necessary for the church are evidently contayned in Scripture n. 9. p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancye c. 7. n. 56. p. 491. Of Evils the lesser may and must be to llerated for avoiding greater c. 12. n. 57. p. 751. And n. 59. p. 753. Uide Perplexity Excommunicaton doth not first separate a Schismatique from the church but presupposes his owne voluntary separation which also may remaine a though the excommunication were taken of c. 7. n. 64. p. 499. deinceps Chilling must separate from the church of England which exeommunicates whosoever affirmes that the 39. Articles containe superstâ—â—â—oÌ„ or errour n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schisme n. 64. p. 499. and n 104. p. 529. F Faith of Christians proved infallible c. 1. per totum VVithout a circle c. 5. per tonum Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first stepp to all merit c. 1. n. 95. p. 103 The infallibility of it is taught by the light of reason and instinct of nature as that there is a God n. 2. 3. 4. p. 38. 39. Acknowledged by Protestants n. 5. p. 39. sequent It is proved by Scripture by Fathers by reason n. 9. p. 30. sequen It is required for acts of supernaturall vertues and consequently it selfe is supernaturall n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Diuine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 it is put 14 p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible but divisible in intension c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq It is an intellectuall vertue repugnant to errour n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth and corrects reason c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with naturall science an act of Faith is most certaine but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in graduall perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq Supernaturall Faith may be without Charity but cannot overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 seq The infallibility of Faith is only requisit for the generall groundsâ— for the particular applicatioÌ„ or matter of fact a morall certainty suffices c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 seq and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the eâ—ercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359 Heretiques opposit doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and I hil directly opposit about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of I hil and the sequels of it in his owne grounds paraleld with the Catholique and convinced to be most preiudiciall to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90 Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to Iewes Turks and Painims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Athisme Ib and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib I hil would seeme to admitt of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to shew that fallible Faith is sufficieÌ„t for salvation are examined and convinced to proue the contrary A nu 102 p. 109 ad finem capit Fallible Faith is alwayes ready to destroy it selfe n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of I hil so often changes Ibid He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing caÌ„ be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
from the sayings of ancient Fathers and moderne Divines can only in the opinion of him and all other Protestants be probable and so cannot oblige every one to know the Creed but men may keepe their liberty Melior est conditio possidentis And Potter himselfe confesses it to be only probable that the Creed containes all fundamentall points and so he cannot oblige men to know the Creed because it only probably containes all necessary Articles If then you cannot proue that any is obliged to know the Creed in vaine doe you say belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall but you must say the direct contrary Men are not in the Principles of Protestants obliged to belieue the Creed Therefore they are not obliged to belieue by it any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall You say Dr. Potter sayes no where that all the Articles of the Creed are fundamentall Neither doth Ch. Ma. ever affirme that he sayes so but the thing being of it self true and you expressly confess it to be true He had reason joyning it with other principles of the Doctor to frame such a Dialague as he did betwene Potter and some desirous to find the Truth And now I hope it appeares that you had no reason to accuse Ch Ma. of vn-ingenious dealing sit for a Faire or Comedy of sirang immodesty of adding to the Doctors words of injustice of blind zeale transporting him beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion and making him careless of speaking either truth or sense That he is a prevaricating Proxy That he patches together a most ridiculous answer That it appeares to his shame c and finally you say certainly if Dr. Potter doth Answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very foole But if he does not then But. I for beare you These be your modest epethitons You say that we Catholiques interpret those divine prescriptions Matth 5. to be no more than Counsells But I pray what Catholique ever taught that our Saviour delivered only a Counsell when he saied whosoever shall say to his brother thou foole shall be guilty of hell fire But all the rest of your acerbity is nothing to that fearefull denunciation which you vtter against Ch. Ma. that our errours as you call them you feare will be certainly destructiue to such as he is that is to all those who haue eyes to see and will not see 52. In your N. 64. you cavill that Ch. Ma. promises to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which he Ch. Ma. said before But presently forgetting himself in stead of answering the Doctors Arguments falls a confuting his Answers to the Argument of Ch. Ma. 53. Answer Ch. ma. N. 20. promises to answer not the Arguments as you say but the Objections of Dr. Potter against that which we had said before which be doth performe N. 21.22.27 and N. 23. he begins to answer the Doctors positive Arguments alledged to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of Faith And the Confutations of the Doctors objections are so strong that you abandon your Client and tell vs that he rather glances at then builds vpon thē that they were said ex abundanti and therefore that you conceiue it superfluous to examine the exceptions of Ch. Ma. against them This is an excellent answer if it could be as satisfactory as it is easy I must intreate the Reader to peruse the N. 21.22.27 of Ch. Ma. and he will finde that Dr. Potter needed a Defence which will be suspected you did not giue because indeed you could not and therefore you fly to an other Answer which you will not find in Dr. Potter That Scripture is not a point necessary to be explicitely believed And How ought Protestants to accept this answer who teach that wee can belieue nothing belonging to Christian Faith but by Scripture alone which if they belieue not Actually nor are bound to belieue it how can they Actually believe or be obliged to belieue the contents thereof If the Church in your opinyon be not infallible and that mē are not obliged to belieue the Scripture to be the word of God and infallible which to them who belieue is not it all one as if it were not what certainty can Protestants haue either that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of simple beliefe or that those which it containes are true you say Gregory of Ualentia seemes to confess the Creeds being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it But Ualentia 2.2 Disp 1. Quest 1. Punct 4. saied only that the Creed containes those things which are in different places contayned in Scripture which is evidently true but he saieth not the Creed was collected out of Scripture which was written after the Creed was composed one thinghe saieth which had bene more for your purpose to obserue that in believing the Creed we are to regard the sence Non enim saieth he sufficit haerere in cortice verborum 54. Subtract from your N. 65. what hath bene answered already or may be answered by a meere denyall or which implies a begging of the Question there will remaine only your saying which yet I cannot say deserves any answer that Ch. Ma. speakes that which is hardly sense in calling the Creed an abridgment of some Articles of Faith For I demand say you these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfore it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfore is not an abridgment of them If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense and signifie thus much That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are comprized in it For it is the proper duty of abridgments to leaue out nothing necessary and to take in nothing vnnecessary 55. Answer this your subtility is so farr from being of any solidity that it overthrowes all abridgments contradicts Dr. Potter and yourselfe and proves that the Creed performes not the proper dury of an abridgment as you say it is and therfor you are injurious to it and the composers therof First your objection may be made against every Abredgment by demanding whether it be an abridgment of those points that are out of it or of those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Secondly you contradict Dr. Potter who saieth Pag 234. The Creed is an abstract or Abridgment of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Seripture or collected ous of it And Charity Maintay saieth it is an abridgment of some articles and so the words of the Doctor are more restrained and limited than