of opinions or strayings of errours By the name of substance something certaine and setled is appoynted thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine for faith is not an Opinion but a certainty But concerning this Text of S. Paul more shall be sayd herafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome The same Apostle Heb. 6. V. 17. 18. 19. sayth God meaning more aboundantly to shew to the heires of the promise the stability of his counsell he interposed an Oath That by two things vnmooueable wherby it is impossible for God to lie we may haue a most strong comfort who haue fled to hold fast the hope proposed which we haue as an anker of the soule sure and firme But how can we haue a most strong comfort an anker of the soule sure and sirme or how doth he shew to the heires of his promise the stability of his counsell if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilityes which are not stable but of themselues subject to change and falshood and for ought we know may finally prooue to be such as long as we haue no other certainty to the contrary Or how can we be assured of that concerning which God interposed an Oath if we be not sure that he euer interposed an Oath or euer witnessed or reuealed any thinge 1. Thessall 2.12 We giue thankes to God without intermission because when you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receyued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God which must signify that they receyued it by an Assent proportionable to such an Authority Motiue and Formall Object and therfore certaine infallible and aboue all humane faith opynion and probability For this cause the Apostle giues thanks to God because when they had receyved the word of God they receyued it as such declaring that they belieued with an assent requiring Gods speciall Grace for which thankes are to be giuē eleuating the soule aboue the forces of nature to a super naturall certaine Act proportionable as I sayd to so sublime an Authority 2. Tim. 1.12 I know whom I haue belieued and I am sure that he is able to keepe my depositum vnto that day Where S. Paule speakes of God as a judg and of the day of judgment and reward of the just which are Articles of Christian Faith not knowne by the light of reason This Text is alledged by S. Bernard Ep. 190. to this very purpose saying Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius The Apostle cryes out I know whom I haue belieued and I am certaine and dost thou whisper Faith is opinion dost thou prate as of a doubtfull thing concerning that than which nothing is more certaine Act. 2.36 Let all the house of Israel know most certainly not only probably that God hath made him both Lord and Christ this Iesus whom you haue crucifyed 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue the propheticall word more sure which you doe well attending vnto as to a cādel shining in a darke place In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets which we belieue by faith concerning Christ our Sauiour with the sight of the eyes and hearing of the eares of the Apostles on Mount Thabor when they sawe our Sauiours glory and heard the voyce of his Father saying This is my beloued Son and yet saith that the Propheticall word is more sure And by this place we also gather that faith though it be jnfallible ād certaine yet is ineuident and obscure like to a candle in a darke place which obscures the light of the candle against the doctrine of Chillingworth that certainty and obscurity are incompatible Luke 21.33 Heauen and Earth shall passe but my words shall not passe Surely if his words were belieued by vs only with a probable assent we could not in good reason thinke they were more stable than heauen and earth which by euidence of sinse and reason we see to be constant firme and permanent 1. Ioan. 5. Yf we receyue the testimony of men the testimony of God is greater But as I sayd aboue what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in it selfe if we can assent to it no more firmely than the Arguments of Credibility or history and humane tradition and testimony of men enable vs For by this meanes we shall finally be brought as low as humane faith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God The contrary wherof we must affirme in his principles who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power or rather jmpotency of humane tradition and reason Which last Texts do clearly ouerthrow his doctrine that we belieue the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition and testimony of men not for the jnfallible Authority of Gods Church 2. Pet. 1.21 For not by mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost What neede of diuine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion euidently deduced from premisses euidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prooue false 1. Pet. 5.9 Whom resist ye strong in Faith Tob. 3.21 This hath euery one for certaine that worshippeth thee that his life if it be in probation shall be crowned Ioan. 10.35 If he called them Goddes to whom the word of God was made and the Scripture cannot be broken May not the Scriptures be broken in order to vs if for ought we certainly know their Authority is not divine nor the poynts they contayne true Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raysed vp loosing the sorrowes of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it Now if our belief of Scripture and contents therof be only probable we cannot be certaine that the contrary assertions or objects are impossible or that it was impossible he should be holden of it since possibility of being true is excluded only by a contrary certainty and whosoeuer belieues any poynt only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability and much less to possibility for the contrary part Coloss. 1. V. 21. 22. 23. And you wheras you were sometyme alienated and enemyes in sense in euill works yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him if you continue in the Faith grounded and stable and vnmoueable from the Gospell which you haue heard which is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen Obserue that the Apostle not only speakes of a Faith which is stable and ground of immobility but also declares that such a Faith is necessary to be reconciled to God from being alienated and enemyes and to be
objections out of scripture And therfor they cannot with certainty believe the sayd principle Your self say Pag 61. N. 23. If our Saviour had intended that all Controversyes in Religion should be by some visible judg finally determined who can doubt but in playne termes he would have expressed himself about this matter And may not we turne the same argument against you and say If our Saviour had intended that all poynts of Faith and religion should be evident in scripture without relation to any visible judg church or vnwrtiten Tradition who can doubt but in plaine termes he would have expressed himself in this matter And my retortion is stronger than your Argument can be because true Catholique Doctrine belieues not only scripture or the written word of God but tradition also or the word of God not written which all grant to haue bene before scripture and from which you confess we receiue scripture it self And so although nothing were sayd in scripture of a visibse judg to determine controversyes in Religion yet vniuersall tradition sense of all Christians and practise of Gods church in determining and defining matters of Faith were sufficient to assure vs therof But Protestants must either alledg evident scripture or nothing at all This I say not as if we wanted evident scripture for the necessity of a visible judg of controversyes but only to shew that we haue not that necessity of alledging scripture for this and every other particular poynt which Protestants haue 25. Secondly I proue our assertion thus we are to suppose that Allmighty God having ordayned Man to a supernaturall End cannot faile to provide on his part meanes sufficient for attaining therof Since then Faith is necessary for ariving to that End if it cannot be learned except by scripture alone no doubt but he would have obliged the Apostles to write as he obliged them to preach and Christians to heare the Gospell For if he left it to their freedom it is cleare that he did not esteeme writing to be necessary which yet must be most necessary if we can attaine Faith and salvation only by scripture But Protestants even for this cause that they are to belieue nothing which is not expressed in scripture cannot affirme that our Saviour gaue any such command to his Apostles seing it is evident no such thing is expressed in scripture Therfor they cannot avouch any such command But for preaching we read Marc 16. V. 15. Going into the whole world preach yee the Gospell to all creatures And in obedience to this command it is recorded V. 20. But they going forth preached every where And our Saviour living on earth sent his Apostles abroad with this injunction Matth 10.7 Euntes praedicate Goe preach The Apostle saith Rom 10.17 Faith is by hearing And V. 18. have they not heard And certes into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth and vnto the ends of the whole earth the words of them where we heare of hearing and speaking but not of writing or reading of a sound conveyed to the eares of the whole world not of any booke or writing set before their eyes Thus we see that only two of the Apostles haue also made themselves Evangelists by writing the Gospell though all were Evangelists by preaching it Chill and his fellowes thinke they can demonstrate out of S. Luke more clearly than out of any other Evangelist that his Gospell contaynes all poynts necessary to salvation and yet He is so farr from producing any command he had to write which had bene the most cleare effectuall and necessary cause that could haue bene alledged that contrarily he shewes that it was done by free election saying Luc 1.1 3. because many haue gone about c. It seemed good also to me to write c. Neither doth any one of all the Canonicall writers alledg a command for writing S. Paule saith 1. Cor 9.16 If I evangelize it is no glory to me for necessity lyeth vpon me for woe is to me if I evangelize not But he sayes not woe to me if I write not and accordingly we see some of the canonicall writers differred writing a long tyme after our B. Sauiours Ascension and did not write but on severall incident occasions as Bellarmine de verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. demonstrates out of Eusebius If then it was not judged necessary that scripture should be written but that the Church had other meanes to beget and conserue true Faith and religion as S. Paule 1. Cor 15.1 expressly saith I doe you to vnderstand the Gospell which I preached vnto you which also you received in the which also you stand And V. 11. So we preach and so you haue believed What can be more vnreasonable than to belieue it to be necessary that all things necessary be evidently contayned in scripture alone without dependance on tradition or the church Or who can believe that the Saints Paule Iames Iude Iohn in their Epistles written vpon severall occasions or to private persons intended to write a Catechisme or specify all necessary points of Faith Hence it is that Eusebius Histor Eccles L. 3. C. 24. affirmes that S. Iohn was sayd to haue preached the Gospell even almost to the end of his life without notice of any scripture and in generall that the Apostles were not sollicitous to write much And the same is observed by S. Chrysostome Hom 1. in Act. Apost If then Protestants cannot proue by evident scripture that all Canonicall writers receyved a command to write how will they proue that they were bound to publish their writings wherof as I sayd some were directed to private persons or that others were or are bound to publish them or to reade them being published And if they can shew no command for these things how can they maintayne that there is no meanes to know matters of Faith except by scripture 26. Thirdly you teach That all necessary poynts are evident in scripture though there be many points evident which are not necessary that we cannot precisely determine what points in particular be necessary that such a determination or distinction is needless For all necessary points being evident in scripture whosoever believes all evident points is sure to know all necessary points and more This is your chiefest ground in this matter But it is evidently refuted by willing you to reflect that by this meanes all must be obliged to know all the cleare or evident texts of scripture otherwise he cannot be sure that he knowes all necessary points since you giue him the assurance of knowing all necessary points only by this meanes of knowing all points that are evident Therfore if he be not sure that he knowes all evident points he cannot be sure that he knowes all such as are necessary Yea every one will be obliged to know every text or period of scripture and to examine whether it be evident or obscure least that if vpon examination it appeare to be
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
alone Thus you write p. 144. N. 31. The Apostles doctrine was confirmed by Miracles therfor it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine divine truth and which had the attestation of divine Miracles The falshood and danger of this doctrine I will purposely confute herafter For the present I say that it makes Scripture wholly vncertaine and vnfit to be a sufficient yea or any Rule of Faith although it were never so cleare and evident in all necessary points For if once we yield that the Apostles could err in poynts belonging to Religion we cannot belieue them with certainty at any other tyme or in any other article as I demonstrate in the next Chapter and the thing is manifest of it self All Divines and all men by the light of Reason require an vniversall Infallibility in that Authority for which they must belieue with divine Faith and if it could erre at one tyme it might erre at another for ought we could know or if it say one thing to day and the contrary to morrow what certainty can we haue to belieue rather the one than the other And indeed we can belieue neither of them with certainty Besides you seeme to require that every part of Christian doctrine be confirmed by miracles beforwe can be certaine of the truth therof which blastes the credit of all scripture For how do you know that the Apostles wrought miracles to proue immediatly and in particular that scripture is the word of God Or how can you belieue that miracles were wrought severally in confirmation of every rext of scripture And yet we belieue every such Text with an assent of divine Faith Nay wheras protestants alledg some texts to proue that scripture contaynes evidently all necessary points you must shewe that those very texts were confirmed by miracles if you will belieue them with certainty as entirely true which I suppose you will judg to be a Chimericall endeavour and therfor we must inferr that by no text of scripture you can proue it to contayne all necessary poynts of Faith Divers other errours you maintayne against holy scripture which as in the next chapter I will demonstrate make it vncapable of being any Rule at all for Christian Faith and therfor you must either retract those errours or renounce the common principle of protestants that scripture alone contaynes evidently all points necessarily do to believed 96. 19. And lastly I overthrow theit sufficiency of scripture alone by not only answering but also confuting the arguments by which they endeavour to establish it For seeing it lye vpon them positively to prove their Assertion if it be demonstrated that the arguments which they bring are either impertinent or insufficient it wil remayne effectually proved that they cānot avouch Scripture alone to contayne all things necessary to salvation I must therfor of necessity be large in answering their Objections in performing wherof I both Answer and Impugne Defend the truth and Confute my Adversary in one generall poynt which alone implyes or extends it self to all particular controversyes in Faith Your 97. First Objection Pag. 109. N. 144. is taken from a saying of Bellarmin de Verb. Dei L. 4. C. 11. That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all 98. Answer First Bellarmin even as you alledge him speaks only of things necessary for all that is for every private person not of things necessary for the whole Mysticall body of the Church as if all such things were evidently contained in scripture yea he expressly declares himself to the contrary § Nota Secundo affirming that the Apostles were wont to preach some things only to Prelats Bishops and Priests as of the manner of governing the Church administring Sacraments refuting Heretiques c Secondly he sayes not that all things which are necessary for all are writtren evidently which only could serue your turne but only that they are written which is true though they were writtē obscurely as many things are contained in scripture in particular and yet obscurely and much less doth he say that they are evident without the declaration of the Church and helpe of tradition which only were for your purpose yea that his words can haue no such meaning but the direct and express contrary Bellarm himself will best declare in that very Chapter from which your objection is taken and almost immediatly after the words by you cited Thus he speaks § sed admissa Dico eorum omnium dogmatum c I say that there are found in scripture testimonyes of all those Doctrines which belong to the nature of God ād that we may concerning such Doctrines be fully and plainly instructed out of the scriptures if we vnderstand them aright but that sense of scripture depends on the vnwritten Tradition of the Church Wherfor Theodoret L. 1. C. 8. relates that scriptures were alledged on both sides both by Catholiques and Arians and when the Arians could not be convinced by them scriptures because they did expound those selfsame scriptures otherwise then Catholiques did they were condemned by words not written but vnderstood according to piety and no man ever doubted but that Constātine consented to that condemnation Could any thing haue been spoken more clearly solidly and truly to shew in what sense things of greatest moment as was that article of the Divinity of Christ our Lord against the wicked Arians for defense wherof the church suffered so much and so many Martyrs shedd their bloud are contaynd fully and plainly in scripture that is in those texts which fully and plainly recommend the church and vnwritten tradition as I noted in the beginning And yet further in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 4. § 7. Necesse est c. he saith that oftentymes the scripture is doubtfull and intricate so that it cannot be vnderstood vnless it be interpreted by some who cannot erre therfore it alone is not sufficient which are his express words and then gives divers examples of some chief points even belonging to the nature of God which all good Christians beleeue as matters of Faith and yet cannot be proved by scripture alone And Cap. 7. he saith S. Austine sayd that that Question whether they who were baptized by Heretiques were to be rebaptized could not be decided by scripture before a full Councell of the Church but that after the Councell had declared the doubt and the whole Question there may be taken assured documents from the scripture For scriptures being explicated by the Councell do firmely and certainly proue that which they did not firmely proue before But why do I stand vpon particular passages since in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 3. he speakes vniversally and sayes that we Catholikes disagree
suppose your owne tenet that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary that is vnless you begg the Question you cannot so much as pretend that every one of the Gospells contaynes all such poynts 4. you hold it only probable that every one of the Evangelists hath written all necessary points therfor you belieue it cum formidine oppositi and must think it not impossible but that some good reason may be alledged and much more imagined which is your word for the contrary 142. Secondly I answer you ought to remember that as the Apostles and other Canonicall Writers wrote not their owne humane sense but were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost of whom we must say Quis Consilarius ejus fuit Rom 11. V. 34. Who hath been his Counseller So you must not expect that we rely on your Topicall cōgruityes for finding out what in particular◠was fit for them to write that is what was the will of God that they should write What reason I pray you can be given why that Holy spirit did inspire foure Evangelists to write neither more nor fewer Why these men were chosen and not others Why they wrote no sooner and not all at once but at very different tymes Why they omitt millons of things and write others and those very few in comparison of those which they omitted and why rather these few in particular which they wrote than some few of those which they wrote not Why some things are written by all of them some only by some and some by one only VVhy other Canonicall VVriters write many profitable but not all necessary things and yet they were wise and honest men and wrote not in a negligent fashion And particularly what reason can be imagined according to your manner of discoursing why any of the Evangelists or other writers of scripture should leaue out any thing necessary for the whole Church as forme of Government Matter ād forme of Sacraments c and yet put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary either for the whole Church or every particular person or had they great care of what is necessary for particular men and regarded not what was necessary for the whole Church Of this we are very sure that they complyed with that end for which the Holy Ghost moved them to write and the conjectures of such considering men as you take pleasure to be styled cannot be of force with any religious mynd except to condemne you of presumption in prescribing to the Holy Ghost what he should haue moved the Apostles to write vnder payne of forfeiting the repute of vvise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 143. Thirdly I Answer If you will needs haue reasons though we must not rely vpon our owne reason in matters of this nature jam sure betterreasons may be given to proue that the Evangelists were not obliged to write all things necessary then you can with any least ground bring them vnder any such burthen 144. First he who will impose an obligation vpon another in the first place obliges himself to a positiue proofe of what he sayes For till that be done every one by the law of nature enjoyeth the liberty of which he is possessed as on the other side he who denyes an obligation of performing this or that doth sufficiently acquitt himself by pleading that no such obligation can be proved And this is not a bare word or voluntary affirmation as if in that case both contrary parts had equall reasons because neither of them seemes to bring any positiue proofe but such a denyall of an obligation not sufficiently proved is a solid and convincing reason grounded vpon positiue Axiom Melior est conditio possidentis in vaine therfor do you aske what reason can be imagined why any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c it being a most sufficient proofe that they had no such obligation because you can bring no positiue proofe for the contrary and if they were not obliged to do it how can you accuse them for doing so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion meerly because they do not that which they had no obligation at all to doe 145. A second reason may be not only imagined but truly deduced both from your particular Assertion and from the generall doctrine of Protestants You teach that he who wrote the First Gospell S. Matthew delivered evidently all things necessary which to the other Euangelists might be a very sufficient reason to hold themselves free from obligation of repeeting those things which had bene delivered already with evidence and which they did certainly know if the thing were true to haue bene so delivered And this reason vrges yet more concerning S. Luke who vvrote his Gospell after S. Matthevv and S. Mark had vvritten theirs and as I sayd did knovv certainly that they had vvritten all necessary points if indeed they had done so Lastly S. John before he wrote his Gospell had seene the Gospels of the other three Evangelists beside other canonicall scriptures and therfor might with good reason think himself disobliged from doing that which had bene done by so many before him And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture S. Matthew foreseeing all future Canonicall writings in which many necessary points were to be expressed might even according to your humane discourse moue him to omitt so me necessary points which he saw would be delivered in other Scripture or tradition especially if we reflect that a truth once delivered in scripture beleeved to be Gods word is a much as a million of tymes Now from the generall doctrine of Protestants that all necessary things are contained in the vvhole scripture collectiuè not in every part therof a cleare reason may be taken to disoblige the Evangelists from vvriting that vvhich they vvere sure could not but be vvritten in other parts or bookes of holy scripture because that Doctrine implyes that the sole-sufficiency of scripture is perfectly asserted and maintayned if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible though they be not all set downe in any one Part or booke therof 146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write which as I haue often sayd being not to make a Cathechisme or a Summe of Christian Doctrine what reason can be imagined that any of them should think himself obliged to set downe in particular all necessary points 147. Will you haue a Fourth reason Let it be this which may also serue for a wholsome and necessary document for you and such as you are we haue good reason to belieue that the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to express either in the Gospells or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things that we might be put vpon a wholsome and happy necessity
from and impugners of the same Church It is well though this also be wickedly done on your behalfe you confess that S. Austine did ransack all places for Arguments against the Donatists and yet we see he finally rested vpon the Churches authority and not vpon scripture which directly proues for vs that after all diligence vsed he comes to acknowledg that more is to be believed and practised than is contained in scripture 195. Your third Answer is delivered in these words We say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church of farr greater extent and therfor of farr greater credit and authority than the Roman Church 196. Answer This your Answer hath but two faults Falshood and Impertinency For S. Austine speakes of the visible vniversall Church And that there was no true Church which did not agree with the Roman and the Roman with it in S. Austins tyme Protestants themselves do grant while they commonly giue to the purity of the Roman Church a larger extent of yeares than from the Apostles to S. Austine And for consequent ages till Luthers tyme either you must say Christ had no true vniversall Church vpon earth or else that it was the Roman and such as agreed with her Your Answer is also no less impertinent then vntrue For our present Question is not what or which is the true Church which is a Point to be disputed a part but only in generall whether the true Church ought to be believed in delivering Objects of Faith not particularly contained in scripture and consequently whether all divine Truths be found in scripture alone 197. Your fourth Answer is He speakes of a Point not expressed but yet not contradicted by scripture wheras the errours we charge you with are contradicted by scripture 198. Answer First I am very glad to heare you confess againe that S. Austine speakes of a Point not expressed in scripture and yet it is a Point believed not only by S. Austin but also by divers learned ProtesraÌ„ts as in particular by Vrban Regius Hoffmanus Sarcerius CoÌ„fessio Augustrana and Bilson who are exactly cited by Bierly Tr 3. sect 7. vnder M. at 13. that baptisme is necessary for the salvation of Children and consequently it were a pernicious errour to hold that baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid if indeed that Doctrine be not absolutely certaine since it were to hazard the salvation of infants and others besides that S. Austine confesses that the baptizing of Children is not grounded vpon scripture and yet he believes it as a certaine and necessary doctrine Secondly it is impertinent whether the errours you charge vs with be contradicted by scripture seing our preseÌ„t question is only whether some truth was believed by S. Austine yea and is also believed by Protestants who are not wont to rebaptize the children of Catholiques or of different Sects amongst themselves which is not expressed in scripture It being also very vntrue that any doctrine of ours is contradicted by scripture this your Answer comes as the former to be adorned with the two excellent qualityes I mentioned of falshood and Impertinency 199. Your fift Answer saith He S. Austine sayes not that Christ has recommended the Church to vs for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversyes but for a credible witnes of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therfor 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 â—yme of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes 200. Answer S. Austine saith not only that Ahrist hath recommended the Church as a witness of Tradition or matter of Fact but also what de jure ought to be done about rebaptizing of such as were baptized by Heretiks and therfor saith expressly If there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given Testimony and that he should be consulted in this Question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not so much him as Christ by whose Testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church Behold S. Austine speaks of the Question or Doctrine it self and not only of examples or what was practised by the Church and therfor saith we should not doubt to performe even for tyme to come what a wise man of whom our Saviour had given Testimony should advise and not only to belieue him that such a thing was or was not practised before Now S. Austine saith that Christ beares witness to the Church as vpon supposition he had done to some wise man therfor we are to belieue the Church as we would belieue such a man so recommended whom certainly we ought to belieue both for matter of Fact and Faith or Doctrine Beside if S. Austine did alledg the Church only as a witness of Tradition his Argument were of no force to establish a Point of Faith vnless he did suppose the Church could not erre in delivering what hath bene a perpetuall Tradition and that the Point delivered by such a Tradition must be true and consequently that the Doctrine delivered by the vniversall Church cannot be false It had bene a strang Argument to say it is credible but not certaine that the Church hath alwayes delivered as a perpetuall practise or tradition that persons baptized by Heretiks are not to bee rebaptized But the church may erre in that which is certaine she does practise therfor it is certaine that persons baptized by Heretiks may not be rebaptized And is it not a great injury to impute such an Argument to that learned and Holy Father If the Church may practise a thing vnlawful what neerer are we by knowing the practise of the Church for our direction in order to the imbracing or avoyding such a pactise And therfor S. Austine proposing the practise of the Church as a Rule and direction what we are to follow supposes the Church cannot erre in the Doctrine on which such a practise depends as all practise depends vpon some dictamen of the vnderstanding The same is evident by other sayings of S. Austine as Epist 118. Which of these things is to be done if the authority of Holy Scripture hath prescribed we must not doubt but that we ought to doe accordingly c as likewise if the Church through the whole world practise any of them For in that case to dispute whether such a thing be to be done is a most insolent madness How could the disputing against any practise of the vniversall Church be censured so deeply if the Church may erre in her practises especially when the Question is whether such a thing be to be believed as a Point of Faith which must rely vpon certainty And we are to obserue that S. Austine speakes of what ought to be done and not only of matter of Fact
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
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue 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 aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
suppose you will not deny but that he can and then seing one cannot be a Saint or a converted sinner or persever to the end except by free Actions of the will proceeding from Grace you must grant that the congruous and efficacious Grace of God may consist both with freedome of our will aÌ„d infallibility in Gods fore-sight I sayd that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles Now I add your Arguments proue not only against the fallibility of the Church and Apostles but also of Christ our Lord in your wicked doctrine that he is not God nor Consubstantiall to his Father but only man and then your demands enter whether he were moved by his Father resistibly or irresistibly And the same answer you giue for Him must be given for his Apostles and his Church You say Pag 86. N. 63. God gaue the Wâ—semen a starr to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starr that was left to their liberty But this instance makes against your self for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the starr and performe that for which he preseÌ„ted it to their eyes and gaue light to their vnderstandings and efficacy to their wills that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentils by their meanes as S. Leo serm 1. de Epiphan saith Dedit aspicientibus intellectum qui praestitit signum quod fecit intelligi fecit inquiri He who gaue the signe gaue them also light to vnderstand it and what he made to be vnderstood he made to be sought after where the word fecit signifyes that God did moue them effectually and yet we haue no necessity to say that they were necessitated 66. By what we haue sayd is answered a wild discourse which you make Pag. 87. N. 95. about the Popes calling the Councell of Trent which I haue shewed might be done both freely and yet proceed from the infallible fore-knowledg and Motion of the Holy Ghost And what you say of the Pope may be applyed against the Apostles and other Canonicall Writters why they did delay so long to write Scripture and whether they were moved to it resistibly or irresistibly c. 67. I conclude that togeather with the Church you impugne the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles and consequently of their Writings which forces me to repeat that according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith and much less a sufficient Rule though it were supposed to contayne all necessary Points of Faith 68. Your 9. and most capitall Errour remaynes wherby you depriue scripture of certainty and infallibility and make both it and the contents of it lesse credible than the Books of prophane Authours and things related in them I meane your Assertion that we know Scripture to be the word of God not by an infallible private Spirit or by vndoubted criteria or signes appearing in Scripture it self as some other Protestants teach nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost according to the Doctrine of Catholikes but from the Tradition of all Churches meerly as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Errour and as their consent is derived to vs by History and humane Tradition The private Spirit which must be tryed by Scripture and not Scripture by it and those pretended manifest signes found in Scripture it self are meere fopperyes confuted by the experience of so many learned men who hertofore haue differed and of Protestants who at this day differ about the Canon of Scripture and this forceth you to say to your Adversary Pag 69. N. 46. That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it self alone but by some extrinsecall Authority you need not proâ—e for no wise man dâ—nyes it And therfor wheras Protestants teach that the Church is only an inducement and not the certaine ground for which we belieue Scripture you in opposition to them affirme that those criteria or signes are only Inducements but that the ground to receyve Scripture is the Church in the manner I haue declared Out of these considerations you choose rather to be sacrilegious then seeme to be simple or no wise man and therfor teach that Christian Faith is not infallibly true but only probable Which being a doctrine detested by other Protestants and by all respectiyely who profess any Religion and Worshipp of God it followes that we must receyue Scripture from the Church of God acknowledged to be infallible This being once granted we must further say that Her infallibility is vniversall in all things concering matters of Faith and Religion neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority to proue the Church infallible in this Point alone For to omitt other Reasons you must proue that Authority by some other and so without end In the meane tyme we haue reasoÌ„ to bless our good God who hath forced ProtestaÌ„ts at length to see the foolery of a private spirit and the vanity of manifest signes pretended to be found evidently in scripture and so come either to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods church or with Atheists and enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith by setling the truth therof vpon humane fallible tradition which say you Pag. 72. N. 51. is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men And Pag 53. N. 3. you teach that scripture may be judge of all controversyes those only excepted wherin the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall Reason the only Principle beside scripture which is common to Christians Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible naturall Reason But now let vs shew the falshood of this your Errour 69. First it is an argument of no small waight that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholikes and Protestants and in the consequence which inavoidably followes it namely that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible wherin as I sayd you contradict all Christians and all men who profess any Religion 70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I haue proved which it could not be if the ground on which it relyes were fallible 71. 3. It hath bene proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God and in all occasions requires the supernaturall influence of the Holy Ghost which yet could not be necessary if Faith were but a fallible conclusion evidently deduced from a Principle not in Christianity but in naturall reason as we haue heard you profess and vpon that ground affirme that Christian Faith is only probable not raysing our Vnderstanding aboue the probability of humane inducements wherin it differs froÌ„ the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholike Divines speake and by which
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
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
others might yet in himselfe and to himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a church that were invisible so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be himself infallible This I say is retorted For whosoever is infallible in him selfe is fit to be an infallible Guide to others per se loquendo and in actu primo and needs only that accidētall impediments bee removed as it happeneth in our case the Church being visible and spred over the whole world So that she can be hidden to no body but is furnished with all meanes of communicating her Doctrine to others Yourself and Protestants grant that the Church is a necessary introduction to Faith which she could not be if she were invisible or that none could know how to repayre to her for direction And then Protestants teaching that she is infallible in Fundamentall points it followes that she may be an infallible Guide in such points and in all other according to your owne inference And so I conclude that your difference of the Churches being infallible and an infallible Guide is vanished into nothing But enough of this Let vs now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide 89. I proue the infallibility of the Church by confuting a Reason or similitude much vrged by our Adversaryes That to him who knowes the way a Guide is not necessary And therfore the Scripture being a plaine Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith no living Guide will be necessary 90. But this Argument is many wayes defectiue 1. We retort it Seing it hath bene proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule a Living Guide must be necessary Certainly if the whole Bible had bene put into severall mens hands without any precedent knowne Tradition Declaration or Ministery of the Church it would haue fallen out that in the most important Mysteryes of Christian Religion which now all are obliged to belieue for example The chiefest Articles of the Creed Sacraments c. scarcely any one would haue agreed with another and much more had it bene impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture to joyne in the same Idea or frame of a Church Suppose then the Bible had bene offered to some Vnderstanding Pagan wholy ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine do you thinke he would haue bene able to gather from the bare words of Scripture the same meaning or Articles which Christians now belieue by the help of Tradition instruction and preaching I say he would never have fallen vpon the same meaning of the words whether he did belieue them to be true or no as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree Which is a signe that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those Mysteryes which Christians belieue them to containe Otherwise every one who vnderstands the words would vnderstand the true sense as ordinarily we vnderstand the meaning of other writings wherin we see men do seldome disagree And the more we consider the force vse and necessity of Tradition the more we shall be constrained to ranke it among those things which are better knowen by wanting than we can apprehend by alwayes enjoying them If men did do things only by the Booke even in mechanicall arts or handy-crafts how different and vnlike works would every one take from the precepts learned only by reading and with how much study and difficulty would that be done and how different would they be both from one another and from those which artificers do now by custome and tradition worke with great ease and vniformity I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his booke or pharmacopaeia without any master at all 91. Secondly If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be knowen but that indeed it is such as there cannot possibly be given any Rule or Direction how to find or walk in it without danger of errour such a knowledg of such a way would not be sufficient of itself but a guide would be necessary to sind and walke in it without danger Now we haue shewed not only that the Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed for which therfor we stand in need of a guide but also that there is no certaine infallible Rule how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it containes which we proved out of Protestants themselves and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose and by their perpetuall and irreconciliable differences which could not happen if they had any such cleare and certaine Rules wherin agreeing they must needs agree among themselves Que sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se Therfore beside scripture which you compare to a way there must be a living Judg to guide vs in that way 92. Thirdly You teach That Scripture is a plaine way in this sense that although we cannot either by it or any other Meanes know what points in particulat be Fundamentall yet because all such Truths and many more are evident in Scripture whosoever knowes all that is evident shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamentall Now this very Doctrine shewes that Scripture alone cannot be a plaine and sufficient way For to know precisely and certainly all evident places of Scripture is impossible to many and of obligation to none as I declared elswhere and therfore the End which is to know all necessary points and can be attayned by this Meanes alone cannot be of obligation which to affirme is absurd as if one should say points necessary to be knowen are not necessary to be knowen By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoyded we being sure that the Church will not faile to propose in due tyme all that shall be necessary without imposing on mens Consciences heavy and vngrounded burthens 93. Fourthly There is a great and plaine disparity betweene the knowing of a way by our corporall eyes and finding out a Truth by our vnderstanding the eye of our soule Our senses are naturally necessarily and immoveably determined to their objects One who is supposed to know his way perfectly may Voluntarily take an other way but cannot therfore be sayd to mistake his owne It passes not so with our vnderstanding except in some prime principles of Reason evident of themselves In other points which either are elevated above the naturall forces of humane capacity or haue an appearance of being contrary to it or crosse our will or cary with them a repugnance to the naturall dictates and inclinations of flesh and bloud our vnderstanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled as daily experience teaches and therfore stands in need of some assisting help and Authority believed to be infallible to strengthen and settle it against all encounters and temptations It is your owne Assertion Pag 329. N.
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
Gospell vnless the authority of the Church did moue me is easily confuted That which moved the Saint to belieue the Gospell was not the authority of any particular Church but of the vniversall which deserves as much credit and is as infallible in one age as in another For if the whole Church of this age could erre what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this and so vpward from one to another more than to this present age and so we could not ground any certainty vpon the Tradition of the whole Churâ—â— of all ages vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the beâ—â—ere of Scripture Your other saying The Christian Tradition being as fall against Manâ—â—haâ—â—s as it was for the Gospell He S. Austine did well to conclude that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus as to belieue the Gospâ—ll overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants that all thinges necessary to salvation are contained in Scripture alone For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell and yet in this second Chapter Pag 114. N. 155. You say Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine having atteâ—â—ation from Tradition truly vniverfall for this reason we conceiue as the Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of Controversyes so their writings now they are dead are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by If being pressed you tell vs perforce that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus but the Tradition which delivered Scripture and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone you manifestly contradict S. Austine Cont Ep Fund Chap 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18. I would not â—elieue the Gospell vnless the Authority of the Church did moue me Them therfore whom I obeyed saying belieue the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me do not belieue Manichaeus Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus vpon the same Authority for which he believed Scripture which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church and therfore both the Scripture and Doctrine or interpretation therof we must receiue from the Church Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 18. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say belieue the Catholikes They warne me not to giue any credit to you If therfore I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say do not belieue the Catholikes thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommeÌ„ding Manichaenâ— Dost thou thinke me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Thus far S. Austine From whose words Cha Ma makes this reflection Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom S. Austine spake when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to belieue Her condemning Luther and the rest Against whom when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically than doctrinally when he sayd Lib de Utilit cred Cap 14. Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he sayd whom I would not haue thought to haue beene or to be if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity consent antiquity But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving authority What madness is this Belieue them that we ought to belieue Christ But learne of vs what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me anything I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ than that I should learne any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him If therfore saith Cha Ma we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scripture from the Church from her also must we take his Doctrine and interpretation of Scripture 27. The application of S. Austines words in your N. 99. to any particular Church is impertinent and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument who as I haue sayd received the Gospell vpoÌ„ the credit of the vniversall Church aÌ„d not vpoÌ„ the Authority of any particular Church or private person and of the vniversall Church he had all reason to say that as for her Authority he believed the Gospell so for the same authority he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus which that vniversall Church condemned But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages and all the Churches or vniversall Church of every Age which must be no less infallible than all the Churches of all Ages and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age vpon which mistake your whole objection goes N. 99. about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument But wheras you say the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity but being first converted were afterward perverted by the Arians as may be seene in Baronius Ann 370. This answer confutes your passionate bitter declamation vented in your N. 101. 28. Your N. 100. demands whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits to say that Protestants would haue men beâ—eue the Roman Church delâ—vering Scripture wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture which are not so And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it 29. Answer as aboue that either you received the Scripture vpon the credit of the Roman Church and such Churches as agreed with her or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy admitting and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible vnles you receaue it for that Reason because the Church delivers it And your admitting some Bookes and rejecting others which the Church receives doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes 30. You say N. 103. As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes I wonder
consisted of the Apostles who determined not only what others but what themselves were to belieue if they had not believed it already as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell and so the Apostles had determined what the Apostles were to belieue The same may be applyed to Generall Councells who determine even what they themselves are to belieue and vniversally if we do conceiue any congregation to be infallibly assisted by God they may declare what themselves and others are to belieue though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers Yourselfe confess that the Governers of the Church may determine Rites Ceremonies c for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference yea if you vnderstand the matter as you should in determining Rites c they determine what every one is not only to practise but to belieue also as I sayd aboue and so all believers may determine in this sense what they are to belieue But the truth is you erre even in Philosophy not considering that when a thing is determined by a Community endued with sufficient Authority to command and define the obligation falls not vpon the whole collectiuè compared with the whole that is adaequate with it selfe but as the whole respects a particular member or part from which it is truly distinguished as includens ab incluso and the whole a singulis partibns in the manner that a mans soule is distinguished from a man Besides the precept of Faith or Believing is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept but a Divine command obliging All and Every one to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God which therby becomes an Object of Faith And I hope you will not deny but that although it were granted that a man cannot oblige himself nor a community it self by their owne Authority or command yet God may and doth oblige all and every one to belieue whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth by such an infallible Propounder as the Church is which in that sense may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue We may also add that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof who are not the whole Church collectiuè but may command and define for the whole Church Lastly what doth this your answer belong to the Point of which Charity Maintayned spoke That there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority in the Church of Christ than in the Synagogue of the Jewes because the Lawes Rites c were more particularly and as I may say minutely determined in the Old then in the New Law which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine for all the many varietyes and different occasions that may present themselves 48. Your N. 143. is answered in three words that when S. Paul 1. Cor. 16.11 sayd All these thinges chanced to them in figure Every body sees that he meant not of the temporall but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes and so if they had one high Priest who was endued with infallibility much more ought we to belieue that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church And the Reader by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned with your Objection will of himselfe see that you labour to seeke but can find no solide matter against him Neither did he ever say that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians as you would make him speake but expressly that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ for those are his words Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection To be a Patterne expresses perfection as being a Rule modell and an idea of that in respect wherof it is a Patterne 49. You needed not in your N. 144. pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant when in the beginning of his N. 24. he sayd This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus For it was easy to see that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent N. 23. His discourse was that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist respectiuè before any Scripture was written as there he shewes at large and consequently that Tradition and not scripturedid then beget faith which is also clearly confirmed by the place which Ch. Ma. cited N. 24. out of S. Irenaeus whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe and even against yourselfe The words of the Saint Lib 3. Cap 4. are What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what If there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned which declare that Tradition is sufficient and powerfull to produce Faith even with facility as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe though no Scripture had beene written And this he affirmes not by way of conjecture or discourse what God would haue done if there had beene no Scriptures but that de facto there was existent such a powerfull Tradition as to it not one nor some nor few but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke that is without Scripture And in this Chapter N. 159. you say Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing From whence you inferr That a man may be saved though he should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God if he belieue Christian Religiō wholly and entirely and liue according to it If this be true doth it not follow that Scripture alone is not the only nor a necessary Rule of Faith seing by tradition alone men may be saved though they should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God And that by this concession you directly blott out the very title of this Chapter which is Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes 50. Now let vs heare what you can Object against Charity Maintayned in this matter You say N. 144. In saying what if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition And in saying that to this order many Nations yield assent who
the Apostles and our B. Saviour were not absolutely infallible because they were built vpon another higher infallibility And I returne your owne words against you if but wise men or even men in their wits haue the ordering of the building they will make it as sure a thing that the building shall not fall from the Foundation as that the Foundation shall not faile the building if it be in their power to doe both these things with as much certainty and facility as to doe one of them And no wonder seing the stability of the Foundation is but a Meanes to the End that the Edifice which is builded vpon it be stable and every wise man hath greater regard to the End then to the Meanes in respect of which the End may be called the Foundation vpon which depends the Election of the Meanes and in vaine it is that the Foundation cannot faile the building if the building may fall from the Foundation And if for example to build high were a meanes to make the building not fall from the Foundation as digging deepe makes the Foundation not faile the building men would be as carefull to build high as now they make sure to digg low for better setling the Foundation and every one would ayme at a tower of Babel Now the Apostles received of the Holy Ghost infallibility not for themselves alone but for the good of the Church and it is no less easy for God to bestowe absolute infallibility vpon the Church than vpon the Apostles vpon the Edifice than vppon the Foundation and therfore no wonder if the Church partake of the same stability and infallibility with Her Foundation for the substance not for the manner that is as the Apostles were so the Church is free from all errour but so as the Church received Her Doctrine from the Apostles and not the Apostles from the Church You find fault with Charity Maintayned who making right vse of this metaphore argues that as a Foundation alone is not a house so to belieue Fundamentalls or the Foundation alone is not sufficient to constitute a Church or house of God without the beliefe of all Points sufficiently propounded as revealed by God and now yourselfe ground a matter of greatest moment the infallibility of the Church vpon the same metaphore very ill applyed towards any other purpose except to proue the contradictory of that for which you alledge it and to confute yourselfe as even now I haue demonstrated And besides all this seing in your Doctrine we belieue the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Apostles or that there were any such men as the Apostles for the Authority of the Church or vniversall Tradition the Church to you is the Foundation of your beliefe that the Apostles were infallible and consequently if your deduction be good the infallibility of the Church must be greater than that of the Apostles because the Foundation must be stronger than the Edifice and so your owne argument directly overthrowes that which you would proue by it 36. By what I haue now sayd your other reason in the same place is answered That a dependent infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of Apostles as the streightnesse of the thing regulated vpon the streightnesse of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing els but an agregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles 37. Answer How many flawes appeare in these not many words And to omit that of Dependance this Reason is not distinct from the former taken from the metaphor of a Foundation to which must be applied the Reason for which we assent to a thing and which therfore is the foundation on which our assent depends I say First Your conclusion is not contrary to the Assertion of your adversary A foule fault in Logicke which teaches that alwayes the conclusion of the disputant ought to be directly contradictory to that which the Defendant affirmes and not consistent with it Otherwise the Opponent would be discovered to fight with no-body You conclude Therfore the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles Which is nothing against Charity Maintayned who proved only that the Church is so certaine and infallible in Her Definitions that they cannot be false forbearing to dispute whether one certainty may be greater then another and therfore secondly you mistake or wittingly alter the question passng from intension or degrees of certainty in order to the same Points to extension of infallibility to different kinds of objects as if though it were granted that the Apostles were more infallible than the Church intensiuè or in respect of the same Points in which both she and the Apostles are infallible because she depends on the Apostles it must follow that the Church cannot be extensiuè as infallible as they were that is cannot be infallible in Points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which is a very inconsequent consequence it being sufficient that the A postles be more infallible than the Church quoad modum seing she depends on them and they not on her as the Apostles were not so infallible intensiuè as our Saviour and yet you will not inferr that their infallibility also must be so limited extensivè as not to reach to vnfundamentall Points and as the Church for Fundamentall Points is builded and depends vpon the Apostles and so quoad modum not so infallible as they were yet Protestants grant that she is absolutly infallible in fuch Points though for them she depend on the Apostles and your reason is against this infallibility as well as against her infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and therfore proves in neither Thirdly according to this your discourse no naturall truth can be inferred with certainty from the most common and knowne Principles of naturall reason as Nothing can be and not be at the same tyme. Every whole is greater than any one part included therin and the like because whatsoever is inferred from such knowne Axiomes must depend on them and therfore not be certaine nor infallible If then your meaning be that the Church is not absolutely infallible because she depends on the infallibility of the Apostles your Reason is manifestly false If you meane that she may be absolutly infallible though not so infallible as the Apostles quoad modum you speake not to the purpose but grant as much as we desire 38. You say It is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule that is from the Doctrine and infallibility of the Apostles being nothing els out an aggregation of men of which every one has freewill and is subject to passions and errour And
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
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
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
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points 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 thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
a Gentile wherby one would apprehend that S. Paule judged it necessary at least per accidens because all knew that his father was a gentil that Timothy should be circumcised and yet contrarily Gal. 2. N. 3. it is sayd but neither Titus wheras he was a Gentil was compelled to be circumcised It is therfor very cleare that this Poynt which you alledg as clearly expressed in Scripture ought rather to be numbred amongst difficult and obscure places and directly against your inference that there is no need of an infallible guide shewes the necessity of such a guide because this determination about the Mosaicall Law was a Definition of a Counsell ād must be declared by the practise of Gods church as being concerning some things not to be alwayes observed but intended to be ordered by the sayd Church without whose authority how should we know when and in what manner the keeping of the Mosaicall Law became both vnnecessary and damnable mortua and mortifera dead and deadly since we see some part therof observed by the Apostles after our Sauiours ascension and sending the Holy Ghost 36. But at least though you haue erred in the first part of your example concerning the evidence of Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary to salvation yet you haue vndoubtedly proved your purpose in the other part That good works are necessary to salvation 37. To this I answer It is strang you should hold this point of the necessity of good works to salvation to be so evident in Scripture that every one who believes the Scripture hath sufficient meanes to discover and condemne the contrary heresie seing you know the common Tenet of Protestants that it is impossible to keep the commandements and the doctrine of many of them that all our actions are sinnes Can the breach of the commandements be a good worke Or can sinfull works be necessary to salvation That is can it be necessary to doe that which is necessary for vs not to doe as every one is obliged not to sinne How then can you say the Scripture is cleare in this poynt since so many of your chiefest brethren must mayntayne the contrary and divers of them do in express termes deny good works to be necessary yea and call it a Papisticall errour yea worse than is the Papists Doctrine as is exactly sett downe in Brierly Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. And see in the same Author Tract 3. Sect. 7. N. 7. The necessity of good works contradicted for new Papistry as pernicious as the old by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others And all this they pretend to doe vpon the warrant of evident scripture 37. And heer I am to obserue that Pag 157. N. 50. you having alledged some poynts as clearly contayned in scripture and in particular concerning Faith Repentance and Resurrection of the body which we haue demonstrated not to be clear without assistance from Gods Church and to be controverted even amongst Protestants add these remarkable words These we conceyue both true because the Scripture sayes so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell wherof our Sauiour sayes Qui non crediderit damnabitur Therfor say I scripture alone is not cleare even in Fundamentall points which directly overthrowes the whole Foundation of Protestants religion And because heer you name expressly the Resurrection of the Body and not only that all men shall rise againe at the last day as you spoake Pag. 101. N. 127. I would gladly know how it is a Resurrection of the Body which never rises againe but another celestiall body is created to succeed it And what reckoning do you make of the 39. Articles of the English Church since Art 4. it is sayd Christ did truly rise rgaine from death and tooke againe his body with flesh bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of mans nature wher with he ascended into Heaven and there sitteth vntill he returne to judg all men at the last day 38. You see then that he hath produced Fundamentall poynts as cleare in scripture which are proved not to be so Of poynts not Foundamentall he chuseth in the same place one example so pregnant and certaine in his conceypt that he hopes we will grant it to be such namely that Abraham begat Isaac But this text is not so cleare as he supposes For how will he be sure if we take those words alone that Abraham was Isaacs Father and not grandfather or yet higher We reade in S. Matthew 1.8 Ioram begat Ozias three Kings being left out For Ioram immediatly begat Ochozias Ochozias begat Ioas Ioas begat Amazias Amazias begat Azarias or Ozias for he had two names as is manifest 1. Paral. 3.11 and 12. and 2. Paral. 22.9 seqq he therfor left out three to wit Ochosias Ioas and Amazias as also Matth. 1.12 frequently in the Latin copy one generation is left out for with S. Epiphanius and others it is thus to be supplyed and read Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren and Jeconias begat Jechonias in the transmigration of Babilon For now we haue only Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon On the contrary where Genes 11. V. 12. it is sayd Arphaxad begat Sale as the Hebrew and Caldaean text haue both in this place and also 1. Paral. 1.18 24. the Septuaginta both heer and there put Cainan between For they saye Arphaxad begat Cainan and Cainan begat Sale S. Luke rollowes the Septuagint Chap. 36. saying Who was of Sale who was of Cainan who was of Arphaxad Besides all this what will he vnderstand by genuit he begat or fuit Filius he was the Son which may haue divers significations as Luc. 3.38 Who was of Henos who was of Seth who was of Adam who was of God Where we see Filius a son must be taken in a different sense as it is referred to Henos Seth and Adam and as it is referred to God vvhose naturall son Adam vvas not But I may seeme to haue sayd too much of such a matter as this vnless it did shevv clearly the difficulty of scripture even in texts vvhich scarcely seeme capable of difficulty 39. Sixtly vvhatsoever effect Protestants yield to Sacraments at least it is necessary they be maintayned and not quite abolished and taken from the true Church of vvhich Protestants teach the right administration of Sacraments to be an Essentiall Note Yea seing there vvant not learned Protestants vvho hold Baptisme to be necessary to salvation if the scripture be not cleare in vvhat concernes this Sacrament it is not cleare in a necessary poynt as I sayd Novv the very vvord Sacrament taken in this sense according to Protestants is not found in scripture yea Socinians teach that it is an abuse of the vvord Sacrament to apply it to holy rites (a) Volkelius Lib. 4 Cap. 22. And in the definition therof Protestants cannot agree
given to his Church the Gift of interpretation and I suppose Protestants will not say that the spirit of God the Grace of God and the Gift of interpretation given by God is necessary only for things not necessary and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces which yet we might doe if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say Apolog. part 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. That which is questioned is whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation are so very plaine that the most vnlearned believers by the reading therof may be instructed to piety and heretiques though not learned may clearly enough be confuted by them aÌ„d he holds the affirmatiue part And so ProtestaÌ„ts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace they must yeald that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner 54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person as we gather from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor 12. To one is giueÌ„ by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledg to another interpretation of languages to another prophecy c which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all in so much as Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Fol 63. teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all no more then is the gift of healing and miracles aÌ„d therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church not in any private person Therfor the Scripture is not so evident that we can be sure of the meaning therof by the interpretation of any but of the Church 55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth in this manner Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn Ioan 1 Cap 4. V. 1. warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit before they can beleeue it which meanes with them must be only Scripture and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture before they can make vse of that spirit by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit and so this spirit shal be necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit Therfore this spirit is necessary and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit and Scripture necessary and not necesssary for trying this spirit which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture And in a word the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit and the finall conclusion will be that the same thing must depend on it selfe the spirit on spirit Scripture on Scripture and so both of them must exist both before and after themselves Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle except by having recourse to Gods visible Church whose spirit needs no triall of men since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit by obliging all to obey Her voyce and to receyue even Scripture it self from Her Authority and Testimony 56. Ninthly I now vrge more in particular that which heretofore I touched in generall that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture declaring any command that we must haue recourse to Scripture alone for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith and yet if the End which is Faith be necessary the only Meanes that is Scripture to attayne that End must also be necessary nor can they produce any evident Text proving that from Scripture alone we can learne all points necessary to be believed 57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion wil be to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg and to shew how little they make to their purpose They produce these words Deut 4. V. 2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you Search the Scriptures Ioan 5.39 these things are written that yee may beleeue Ioan 20.31 And that of the Beraeans dayly searching the scriptures Act 17. V. 11. we haue the Propheticall word more sure 2. Pet. 1.19 All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke 2. Timoth 3.16 58. Now these Texts are so farr from proving evidently what is intended that it is evident that neither these nor any other can be alledged to proue that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone The reason is because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church as Moyses the Prophets and writers of Canocall scripture nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles and preachers of the Gospell Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone Nay out of this ground I further infer that seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides they had no obligation at all to consult scripture and much less scripture alone and if they had no such obligation no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme that they were so obliged and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling Pag 116. N. 159. that God requires of vs vnder payne of danatioÌ„ only to belieue the verityes therin in scripture contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are coÌ„taynâ—d By which assertion he doth not only disoblige meÌ„ from having recourse to scripture but also froÌ„ believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof caÌ„ be learned by other meanes as they might while those visible guides were living Therfor no text caÌ„ be brought to proue that men were or are obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number 59. But beside this there is another fundamentall
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 it to be a perfect Rule he believes it to be a Rule 95. Besides this you deliver another doctrine which overthrowes the sufficiency of scripture taken
from Heretiques because we affirme that all necessary doctrine concerning either Faith or Manners is not contayned expressly in scripture and that beside the written word of God there is required the vnwritten word that is Divine and Apostolicall Traditions c ād C. 4. the very title wherof is this The necessity of Traditions is proved in the beginning he sayth First we will endeavour to shew that scripture without Traditions was neither simply necessary nor sufficient Secondly that there are extant Apostolicall Traditions not only concerning manners but also Faith Is it not very strāge you should alledg Bellarmine for the sufficiēcy of scripture alone who in a whole booke containing twelue Chapters professes to teach and proue the necessity of Tradition or Gods vnwritten word and in most cleare words which even now we alledged declares how scripture is cleare and sufficient namely togeather with Tradition and Interpretation of Gods church But by this is confirmed what I sayd aboue how hard it is to find evidence in holy Scripture the matter and manner wherof surpasses all naturall witt seing the words of men are so confidently alledged out of those places wherin they purposely teach profess and proue the direct contrary of that for which they are produced as here you say that the words you cite out of Bellarmine are as you conceyue as home to your purpose as you could wish them 99. Object 2. You say Pag 337. N. 20. S. Luke plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary And Pag 212. N. 43. For S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospell that is as you speake the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ in my judgment it ought to be with them that belieue him no manner of question And this you endeavour to proue out of these words of S. Luke in the Introduction to his Gospell For asmuch as many haue taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst vs even as they delivered vnto vs which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word it seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thou hast bene instructed To this place you add the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles the former treatise haue I made ô Theophilus of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach vntill the day in which he was taken vp Therfor say you all things necessary to salvation are certainly contayned in S. Lukes writing alone 100. Answer First you falsify S. Luke in saying that he plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary For where do you find those words all things necessary And much less can you find that he plainly professeth to deliver all things necessary and least of all that he plainly professeth to deliver all necessary things plainly or evidently The Question is not between vs whether all necessary things be contayned in scripture obscurely or implicitely or in a generall way of referring vs to Gods Church for divers particulars but whether all necessary Points be contayned in scripture expressly in particular evidently without reference to the Tradition Interpretation or Declaration of the Church and it is evident that S. Luke hath no evident words to proue all that I haue sayd you must proue if you speake to the matter Which also appeares by considering that not only Catholiques amongst whom you will not deny but there are many learned pious and desirous to saue their soules but Protestants also see no such evidence for proving the sufficiency of S. Lukes Gospell or any other Gospell or particular Booke of Scripture taken alone seing their doctrine is that scripture contaynes all things necessary only after the Canon was finished and yet S. Lukes Gospell was written forty yeares before the whole scripture was written For this cause Protestants interpret Omnis scriptura vtilis est 2. Tim. 3.16 All scripture is profitable not distributiuè for every particular part or Booke of scripture but collectiuè for the whole Bible and some English Protestant Translation Ann 1586. hath not All scripture but the whole Bible is profitable where by the way is to be noted how they can helpe their errours by their different Translations and how litle credit is to be given to their Bibles Neither do Protestants commonly alledge these Texts of S. Luke for the sufficiency of scripture but other places as we haue seene aboue and who can imagine that they would haue omitted so pregnant a proofe if they were of your mynd concerning the evidence therof Remember here what you say Pag. 61. N. 24. The thing is not evident of it self which is evident because many do not belieue it How then can the words and meaning of S. Luke be evident of themselves seing so many both your Brethren and Adversaryes neither see nor belieue any such meaning Call also to mynd what you write Pag 99. N. 119. How shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plaine termes the Church of Rome is infallible This I retort and fay seing there is not I say not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ but not one learned writer for 1500. yeares after Christ that interprets this Text as you doe How shall I be assured that this place hath indeed this sense in it Yea even by this appeares the necessity of a living judg to declare the true meaning of this and other Texts of Scripture as occasion shall require 101. 2. S. Luke saith Assecuto omnia Having had perfect vnderstanding of All And the former Treatise haue I made of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach Of All All is a signe of Vniversality he that sayes all excepts nothing If therfor we follow the plaine obvious vsuall Grammaticall and Logicall sence it must signify that S. Luke delivered in writing absolutely all that our Saviour wrought and taught But this larg notion you cānot admitt without contradicting S. John Cap 21.25 But there are many other things which Jesus did which if they were written in particular neither the world it-self I thinke were able to containe those books that should be writtē Well thē being drivē from the Logicall ād seeming evidēt notion of All you must vnderstand All not in the whole latitude of the word but with some restriction I pray you shew vs this particular restriction not from any probable vncertaine topicall discourse of your own but from some certaine express evident Text of Scripture declaring this restriction But this is impossible for you to doe as every child will see Therfor this your argument is already at an end for as much as can be proved out of
set downe Therfor we cannot gather pecisely from the quality of the things in themselves the necessity of their being set downe in writing 137. Thus I hope your Objections and Demands set out with so great pompe and demonstration of some hidden mystery only to amuse some vnwary Reader are answered and confuted and demonstrated to begg the Question and to contayne either manifest falshood or to be wholy impertinent wherin I haue stayed the longer because this Argument taken out of S. Luke is that wheron you most rely as also in regard that what I haue sayd here will serue a fortiori to answer the Reasons which you bring to proue that every one of the foure Evangelists hath set downe all things necessary to be believed though you thinke it most certaine of S. Luke 138. This you endeavour to proue Pag 210. N. 40.41.42.43 though N. 40. you say only that of all foure it is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent and N. 43 It is very probable that every one of the foure Evangelists has in his booke the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ But for S. Luke in my judgment it ought to be no manner of Question Now this doubtfulness being acknowledg by you and your conclusion pretend to be no more then probable your reasons can be only probable and some topicall congruityes and then I confute you with your owne words Pag 60. N. 21. for ending of civill controversyes who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only judges should be appointed but that it should be knowen and vnquestioned who they are Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these judges and they had no certaine warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruityes would not any man say such judges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversyes then end them If this be true how will you haue vs in matters of Eternity and of infinitely higher concernement than civill Controversyes take for a Rule or as Protestants speake a judg every one of the foure Gospells since according to your owne Axiom it is absolutely necessary that it should be knowen and vnquestioned that they are such Otherwise if it be a disputable thing whether they be judges and we haue no certaine warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruityes vvill not any man say such judges in all likelyhood vvill rather multiply Controversyes than end them Besides Christian Faith must rely not vpon probable but on some infallible and vndoubted authority vvhich that Rule or judg cannot pretend whose Authority they who are to be tryed by it and who appeale to it directly acknowledg not to be such Morover seing Protestants hold that scripture is not only the Rule but the only Rule of Faith topicall Arguments or congruityes which in other matters might be of some waight can be of no force with them in this our case And therfor your endeavours are in vaine vnless you bring some text yea aÌ„d some evideÌ„t text of scripture to proue this tenet which since you do not as will appeare your argumeÌ„ts aÌ„d hath bin coÌ„fessed by your self I might wel reject all your proofes draweÌ„ only froÌ„ humane reasons as insufficieÌ„t aÌ„d impertineÌ„t without any other particular answer Yet that it may appeare how weake your proofes are I will examine every one in particular aÌ„d I belieue they will be found no better thaÌ„ a perpetuall begging of the questioÌ„ aÌ„d to proue nothing vnless you presuppose that all necessary points must be particularly set downe in holy scripture and that although you seeme to multiply arguments yet indeed you do but repeete the same to witt that no reason can be imagined that any of the Evangelists should omitt any thing necessary and the like conjectures of your owne 139. That this may appeare more clearly let vs propose three Propositions First the doctrine of Catholiques that scripture taken alone contaynes not particularly and evidently all things necessary to salvation then that it is doubtfull whether or no scripture containes all such necessary points thirdly that all things necessary to salvation are particularly and evidently contained in scripture as the Protestants hold This being premised I hope to demonstrate that every one of your arguments must either begg the Question or at least proue nothing 140. Pag 210. N. 40. you say VVhat reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue ouâ— any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet put in many things as apparently all of them haue done which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary VVhat wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospell of Christ would do so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion 141. Answer First let vs apply to this your Objection the three propositions I mentioned First then Catholiques belieue that all necessary Points of Faith are not expressly and evidently contayned in scripture therfor no reason can be imagined that any of the Evangelists hath left out any thing which he knew to be necessary Yourself will not approue of this consequence but we must say the contraty therfor we can haue no reason to belieue that they were obliged to do so it not being a thing necessary to be done by them or any Canonicall Writer and to retort your owne words what reason can be imagined to oblige them therto Therfor vnless you expressly presuppose our doctrine all things necessary are not evideÌ„tly contained in scrip ture to be false and your contrary assertion true your argument hath no force and what is this but still to be begging the question Do you not know that according to the Rules of Logick the disputant must proue and that it is sufficient for the defendant to stand to his Conclusion till you can remoue him from it by force of argument And yet for the present I need not make vse of this Right but only abstract from the truth or falshood of our most true doctrine in this matter and therfor secondly let vs suppose it to be doubtfull whether all things necessary are contained in the whole bible In this case it must remayne much more doubtfull and so not so much as probable but only by Imagination whether every one of the Evangelists hath set downe all such things For it may be supposed not to be done by every one but by all of them or by all the Canonicall Writers collectiuè as it is the common opinion of ProtestaÌ„ts who therfor must solâ—e your Objections no lesse thaÌ„ we Catholiques 3. Although we suppose your false Doctrine about the sufficiency of scripture alone to be positively true and notonly doubtfull yet you can only infer from thence that all necessary points must be contained in the whole bible as other Protestants teach but you cannot gather that they must be contained in all and much less in every one of the Gospelss Contrarily vnless you
Having set downe these words of S. Irenaeus you vrge them thus Pag 211. N. 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretikes that pretended as you know who do now a dayes that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour It is plaine therfor that be must meane as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Mark Now you will not deny I persume that S. Peter preached all therfor you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all In your Margent you cite S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. 162. Answer you set nor downe the Booke or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus I haue found it and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant and manifold that I scarcely know where to beginne the discovery or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraude 163 First In those words which you cite they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses it is only sayd that the foure Evangelists wrote their severall Gospells but it is not so much as insinuated that every one or all of them wrote all things necessary to salvation nor any least thing that may seeme to looke that way or to be for your purpose in āy other respect as shall appeare anone But your misery is that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture and in vertue of that begging supposition you extend indefinite Propositions as if they were vniversall and yet did signify not absolutely all as vniversalls are wont to doe but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation wheras S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all nor the words necessary Articles Your chief or only care should haue bene to proue positively a necessity that all things necessary should haue bene written in every one of the Gospells and then you might with some more shew of reason turne indefinite into vniversall propositions but your negatiue way or only asking questions what reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c will not satisfy S. Irenaeus teaches that S. Marke delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter but doth he say all those things which had bene preached by Peter He neither did nor could say so the thing being in it self manifestly vntrue For S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth which neither S. Mark nor any other of the Evangelists haue written as we may learne from S. John Chap. 21. and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonicall Writers haue written and can you affirme that S. Peter delivered none of those points And in particular could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ till his baptisme which yet S. Mark omitts as we noted aboue It is therfor evident that S. Irenaeus could not meane that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered and therfor he wrote only some and not all This then must be your Argument S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and much more but S. Mark wrote only some and not all that S. Peter preached therfor S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and more An Argument like to this God knowes all things Mr Chillingworth knowes some but not all things that God knowes therfor Mr. Chillingworth knowes all things Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 8. cites S. Irenaeus thus Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing those things which he had receaved from him where we see no vniversall but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus his purpose to treate whether or no the Evangelists or other Canonical VVriters did set downe all necessary points For he wrote against certaine absurd Heretiques whe denyed that God created Heaven and earth or breached some other such pernicious fooleryes which might be confuted out of scripture though it do not containe all other necessary points of Faith And it is too much boldness another would call it impudency in you to say that in the words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition and for this you cite S. Irenaeus Lib 3. Cap 2. and Pag 346. N. 30 you say Irenaeus had to do with Heretiques who somwhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fitt to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition c But in this your fraud is intolerable For those Heretiks of whom S. Irenaeus speakes when Catholikes did alledge scripture excepted not against it because it did not contayne all necessary truths or not the truth of Christ perfectly which exception could nothing availe them it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy if the scripture did containe as much as was contradictory to their errours supposing they did believe it to be the word of God but their exception was that it was not well written was false and not agreeing with it self as may be seene in that very third Booke and second Chapter which you alledg against vs in the words which now I haue cited out of you and therfor you cannot pretend ignorance for excuse of your want of sincerity Thus then S. Irenaeus in that Lib 3. Cap. 2. the title of which Chapter is Quod neque scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici That Heretiks obey neither Scripture nor Traditions beginns that Chapter with these words When they are convinced out of Scripture they fall vpon accusing the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor of sufficient authority and that they did varie from themselves and that truth could not be gathered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition These very words yourself Pag 361. N 40. alledg out of S. Irenaeus and say The Fathers vrged tradition against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not be found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane say
you wholy but by word of mouth and that thervpon Paul also sayd we speake wisdome amongst the perfect But the word wholy in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false glosse to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques wheras it is plaine as we haue heard out of your owne confession that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths because they held it not to be the infallible word of God but to contayne falshoods and contradictions and your conscience cannot but beare witness that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and necessity of tradition vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was 164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited where he sayth against those Heretiks Neither is it lawfull to say that they preached before they had receyved perfect knowledge as some presume to say boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles And this horrible Heresy he confutes because the Apostles did not preach till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost Where I beseech you remember with feare and trembling your owne doctrine that the Apostles did erre about preaching the Gospell to Gentils and in some things did not deliver divine truths but the dictates of humane reason and all this after they had receyved the Holy Ghost and then consider whether you or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus and detract from the sufficiency of scripture which if these your doctrines were true would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus Lib 1. Cap 29 where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike he perswaded his disciples that his word was more to be believed than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg and therfor you are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men For S. Irenaeus in the same Lib 3. Cap 2. having sayd that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture they fly to tradition he adds But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests they oppose themselves against Tradition saying that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests but also than the Apostles haue found out the sincere truth And so it comes to passe that they assent neither to scripture nor Tradition Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter Quod neque scripturis c. as I sayd aboue Wherby it appeares that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours and therfor when they appeale to Tradition it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men which even yourself Pag. 344. N. 28. affirme out of S. Irenaeus where you say that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he S. Irenaeus wrote And Pag. 345. N. 29. You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation For there you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus and make him speake in this manner You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition and insteed thereof you fly for refuge to a secret tradition which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours Do not these words declare both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne As contrarily it is evident out of S. Irenaeus that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests which demonstrates that there was no necessity that all necessary points should be written and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary wheras it is most certaine and evident that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession of Bishops and Pastours ād particularly of the Bishops of Rome whose succession and names he setteth downe to his tyme as may be seene Lib. 3. Chap 3. and then concludes by this order and succession that tradition which is in the Church derived from the Apostles and preaching of the truth came to vs. And this is a most full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving Faith which from the Apostles to this tyme hath bene in the Church conserved and delivered in truth I beseech the Reader for the good of his owne soule to read what this holy Father writes of traditions Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40 and Lib. 4. C. 43. where he hath these remarkeable words wherfore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church and haue succession from the Apostles who with Episcopall succession haue receyved the certaine gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father But others who depart from the principall succession and haue their conventicles in what place soever we ought to hold for suspected either as Heretikes and of ill doctrine or as schismatikes and provd and pleasing themselves or els as hypocrites doing these things for lucre and vainglory And yet further L. 4. C. 45. he hath these words Paul teaching vs where we may find such he meanes Faithfull persons whom our Lord hath placed ouer his family of whom he spoke in the end of the precedent 44. Chapter saith he placed in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Doctours where therfor the gifts of our Lord are placed there we ought to learne the truth with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles and that is constantly kept which is wholsome vnblemished for conversation and not spurious but incorruptible in doctrine that is both for manners and Faith affirming that in neither of those the Church can erre For those men do keepe our Faith which is in one God who made all things and expound to vs the scriptures without danger And the same he sayth L. 4 C. 63. yea even vvhitaker Controu 1. 9. Q. C. 9. saith We confess with Irenaeus the Authority of the Church to be firme and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine a posteriori Where vve see Whitaker speakes of doctrine and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to vs. And S. Epiphanius is so cleare for traditions Heresi 61. we must vse traditions for the scripture hath not all things and therfor the Apostles delivered
in this whole chapter it is easy to answer a kind of Objection which you make Pag 134. N. 13. against those words of Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Ch. 3. N. 19. I deliver a catalogue wherin are comprised all Points y vs taught to be necessary to salvation in these words We are obliged vnder paine of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible church of Christ proposeth as revealed by God Against this you say that in reason Charity Maintayned might thinke it enough for Protestants also to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the scripture is true and contaynes all things necessary for salvatiō and to doe his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentalls of Faith 211. This Objection I say is easily answered out of the grounds we haue layed and proved For First we deny that scripture containes all things necessary for salvation and so one might belieue all the contents therof and yet want the belief of some necessary Points But whosoever believes scripture with the Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church is sure to belieue all and so hath a sufficient catalogue of all 2. Whosoever believes the church hath an evident and certaine Meanes to know the true Meaning of scripture in all necessary Points Not so they who belieue only scripture which needs an infallible Interpreter 3. We are sure that the church which is assisted by the holy Ghost will not faile to propose in all occasions every particular Object of Faith as necessity shall require Which as I haue often sayd scripture cannot doe taken alone And therfor our chiefest care must be to belieue the true church which we know will propose in due tyme all necessary Points of Faith whether or no we know what Points in particular are fundamentall and so this belief of the church brings with it the explicite belief of all necessary Objects as need shall be But you cannot tell whether you belieue all fundamentall Points vnless first you know what Points in particular be such and therfor Protestants hitherto haue endeavoured to assigne a particular Catalogue of them and after all you come to tell vs that it is impossible to make any such Catalogue 212. But enough of this Objection and whole Question wherin much more might haue beene sayd out of scripture Fathers and Reason which may be seene at large in Catholique VVriters My purpose was to answer Mr. Chillingworths Arguments and yet some will thinke I haue beene to long to whose judgment I would subscribe as soone as any other if I had not found that perpetually he gives so many advantages as I must either haue bene long or wholy dissembled them and by occasion given by him some things not vnprofitable in themselves haue bene declared 213. And even now I must not omitt to add a new Argument to all my former and it is this that although it were granted that scripture alone did containe evidently and expresly all particular Truths that we are bound to belieue yet this were not enough for Protestants if they will belieue this mans doctrine which is such as overthrowes the authority of scripture it self and therfor they must either renounce his Assertions or els be content to alter their pretended most common ground that scripture alone contaynes evidently and in particular all Points of Faith and so returne to belieue the authority and infallibility of Gods Church 214. The Reader I confess may well expect now that having proved Christian Faith to be infallibly true and that this infallibility cannot be setled vpon scripture alone I should according to good order declare what is that on which it must be grounded yet for perfiting this Question about the sufficiency of scripture alone I must of necessity shew out of this mans particular Tenets that if his doctrine were true scripture cannot be any Rule at all and much less a perfect Rule for matters of Faith This I will endeavour to peforme in the next Chapter CHAP III. A CONFVTATION OF MR. CHILLINGVVORTHS ERROVRS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTVRE IT is a singular Providence of God to permit you who pretend that Scripture is a totall and not only a partiall Rule of Faith as you speake Pag 55. N. 8. to publish so gross errours against the Authority therof that if they were true it could not be so much as any Rule at all much less a totall and perfect Rule of Faith 2. First then you teach and endeavour to proue that Scripture is none of the materiall Objects of Faith but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs as you expressly say Pag 65. N. 32. And yet in this you are still like yourself so confused that you may be alledged for both parts of contradictory Assertions For in the same place you deliver these words All the divine verityes which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contayned in Scripture That is all the materiall Objects of our Faith wherof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs Which we belieue not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speakes of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aymes at is the belief of the Gospell the Covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to belieue but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the instrument of it When therfor we subscribe to the 6. Article of the 39. of the English Protestant Church you must vnderstand that by Articles of Faith they meane the finall and vltimate Objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall Objects 3. what confusion and obscurity is here First scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith but only the meanes of the conveying them to vs. Which words put an antithesis between the materiall objects of our Faith and the meanes of conveying them to vs that is scripture Then which Scripture we belieue not finally and for it self but for the matter contayned in it or as you say afterward this Scripture also we are to belieue but not as the last object of our Faith but as the instrument of it Which words seeme to signify that we are to belieue scripture though not finally and for it self and consequently that it is a materiall object of our Faith For what is a materiall object of Faith except that which is believed by Faith And then how is scripture none of the materiall objects of Faith if it be one that is believed though not for it self If a thing cannot be sayd to be a materiall object of Faith
vnless we belieue it finally and for itself divers verityes contained in scripture shall not be materiall objects of our Faith and in particular all those of which S. John speakes Cap 20. V. 30.31 Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Booke And these are written that you may belieue that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Those Miracles then were written not for themselves but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth Jesus is Christ the Son of God and even the belief of this Truth is referred to a further end that believing you may haue life in his name And 1. Pet. 1.9 we read more vniversally that the end of our Faith is the salvation of our soules Besides this Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. 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 Nay is it not apparent that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture 4. Sir Are you a Christian of any profession If you be then it must be manifest to all the world that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture Therfor scripture is one part or Object of your belief and this as you profess vnder paine of damnation and consequently it is not only an object but a necessary object to be believed and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must doe so that is belieue scripture seing you can haue no reason to in Christ but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture If then you teach as you doe that one is not bound to belieue Scripture but may reject it you must grant that by the same reason he may not belieue yea may reject Christ himself And now heare what you say Pag 116. N. 159. If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely and liue according to it such a man though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinyon is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vnderstanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved Therfor men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had beene 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 paine of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned In some of these words you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting For not so much seemes to signify that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree but this very mincing of things shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify we must say that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili For if this truth scripture is the word of God be revealed it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith then the verityes contayned in it If it be not revealed it is not only not so much but not at all an object of Faith But your other words neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by them but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved do either directly signify that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith nor a thing revealed by God or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine or rather blasphemy that a truth revealed by God may be rejected which you cōfess is to giue God the ly And that finally this is your opinion scripture is not a materiall object of Faith appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117. Where you say This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submitt to better judgment For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your N. 159. Neither can you avoide this absurdity by saying one may reject scripture if it be not sufficiently propounded For you put the very case that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them saying God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned and yet it is a thing granted by all and evident of it self that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture or any other verityes vnless they be sufficiently proposed and therfor if you will make good the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof and not contradict yourself you must confess that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof but may reject it although it be sufficiently proposed yea it will also follow that the contents therof may be rejected the first and last and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word For they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture if first they be perswaded that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self from which alone they can come to know any such obligation And so protestant ministers 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
that nothing but Gods word or Revelation can erect or qualify an Act of Faith and consequently only Gods infallible Word can be a Rule of Faith 14. But it is tyme that we come to the matter it self aÌ„d coÌ„fute this errour which in effect I haue done already by occasion of examining some sayings of yours 15 First then I oppose yourself to yourself And beside the places which I haue alledged aboue out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you confess scripture to haue bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and out of your Pag 55. N. 8. That By Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proued which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer that there is a God or that the Booke called Scripture is the word of God c In which words you ranke scriptures among those things which are to be believed which is to be a materiall Object of Faith as the existence of God is such an object besides I say the places which I haue produced already I must not omit what you say Pag 141. N. 28. where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonicall and that what they delivered in that kind is an Article of Faith and if an Article of Faith then it is a materiall object of Faith and Pag 142. N. 29. where you expressly say of some Bookes that if they were approâ—ed by the Apostles this 〈◊〉 hope was a sufficient definition and I hope that the definition of the Apostles is sufficient to make a thing an Object of Faith and induce an obligation for vs to belieue it Also Pag 90. N. 101. speaking in the person of an English Protestant you say Scripture evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith If scripture be the sole and adequate object of Faith certainly it is an object of Faith or a thing believed by Faith How then do you teach that it is not an object of Faith Besides into what extremes do you fall teaching on the one syde that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith and yet affirme that it aÌ„d it only is the Object of Faith by being the sole aÌ„d adequate object therof And thus as somtyme you teach that not scripture it self but only the contents therof are the object of Faith so now you must say that not the contents but only scripture it self is the object thereof because having begun to say that scripture containeth the objects of Faith by way of correcting that speach you say it is rather the sole aÌ„d adequate object of it giving to vnderstaÌ„d that at least rather scripture then the contents therof are the object of Faith and that you had spoken more truly or more exactly if you had sayd scripture is the sole and adequate object of Faith theÌ„ in saying it containeth the objects of Faith To this I add what you write Pag 115. N. 156. Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath desceÌ„ded to vs from Christ by originall and vniversall Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus dâ—sceÌ„ded to vs therfore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief Doth not this clearly declare that scripture challenges our belief You say also Pag 377. N. 58. All Christians in the world those I meane that in truth deserue this name do now aÌ„d alwayes haue believed the Scripture to be the word of God Therfor say I the belief of all Christians that in truth deserue that name is that scripture is the word of God or an object of their belief which since you deny how will men say do you deserue the name of Christian Also if meÌ„ may be saved by believing the mysteryes of ChristiaÌ„ religion though they be ignoraÌ„t of scripture yea and deny it how can you say they deserue not the name of Christians Or if they do not deserue that name surely they caÌ„not be saved And how caÌ„ you say all Christians in the world do now and aâ—wâ—yes haue believed Scripture to be the word of God since P. 116. N. 159. you affirme out of S. Irenaeus that some barbarous nations believed the doctâ—inâ— of Christ and yet belieued not the Scripture and you say expresly these barbarous people might be saved How theÌ„ is it true that all Christians haue alwayes believed scripture to be the word of God Lastly you speake home wheÌ„ P. 337. N. 19. you say The Church may yet moâ—e truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God If the Church must perish by denying Scripture to be the word of God you must grant that the contrary Truth Scripture is the word of God must be a matter of Faith as it is a matter of Faith that Jesus is the Christ But because it is no newes for you to cotradict your self I coÌ„fute your doctrine by other argumeÌ„ts 16. Secondly it is impossible to belieue the matters contayned in Scripture to be revealed by God vpon the Authority of Scripture vnless we belieue the Authority of Scripture it self to be revealed For how can I belieue a thing because such a man affirmes it vnless I belieue both that he affirmes it and that his word deserves credit But Protestants belieue the contents of scripture for the Authority of scripture or as we haue heard Potter speaking Pag. 143. For divine revelation made in scripture Therfor they must belieue the Authority of scripture and so scripture it self is no less a materiall Object of Faith than the contents of it which are confessed to be a materiall object of Faith because they are believed 17. Thirdly If Trismegistus Plato or any other of fallible Authority had casvally delivered the same Mysteryes which Christians belieue he who should haue taken them only vpon such Authority could not haue believed by a firme infallible Divine Faith Therfor it is not sufficient to belieue the Matters contayned in scripture vnless they be believed for some firme and infallible Authority Therfor if we belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith for scripture we must beliue scripture itself to be of infallible Authority And Protestants in particular can haue no Faith at all who pretend to belieue all the Mysteryes of our Faith for the Authority of scripture alone if scriptur be not believed to be infallible 18. Fourtly I take an Argument from your reason to the contrary For those people of whom S. Irenaeus speakes had not bene obliged to belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith vnless they had bene confirmed aÌ„d made credible by Arguments which proved them to proceed from God but you graÌ„t that the scripture is proved to proceed froÌ„ God by those very Miracles which were wrought by Christ aÌ„d
that we are obliged to belieue the contents or verityes contained in scripture but one of those is that scripture it self is the word of God and inspired by Him therfor we are obliged to belieue scripture to be the word of God The minor is proved out of S. Paul 2. Timoth 3.16 All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach c. that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke Which words Protestants and yourself in part alledg to proue that scripture is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith And if it be a perfect Rule certainly it must be a Rule therfor that scripture is a Rule of Faith is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently a materiall Object of our Faith Or if you will needs say that we do not belieue as an Object of Faith scripture to be a totall Rule of faith you overthrow the cause of Protestants and yourself by confessing it cannot be proved out of scripture that scripture is such a totall Rule which is the thing I haue mainly vrged against you in my last Chapter and if this cannot be done why do you goe about to doe it by alledging texts of scripture for that purpose Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to proue that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you graÌ„t it cannot be proved out of scripture on which you profess all matters of Faith to be grounded Yourself P. 143. N. 30. note it is saied in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrâ—es of the Church are divinely inspired and the controversy will bâ—at an end that is you will belieue as a matter of Faith that the decrees of the Church are infallible seing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired you must belieue as a matter of faith that it is infallible or the word of God The like argument I take from the doctrine of Protestants and their endeavour to proue out of scripture that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points for which they are wont to alledg the words of the Psalme 18. V. 9. The precept of our Lord lightsome illuminating the eyes and Psalm 118. V. 105. Thy word is a lampe to my feete and 2. Pet 1. V. 19. which you doe well attending vnto as to a candel shining in a darke place Therfor according to them this Proposition scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points is a truth contayned in scripture and a materiall Object of Faith vnless they will grant what we vrge against them that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Poynts Besides Pag 143. N. 30. you bring the said words of S. Paul All scripture is divinely inspired expresly and immediately to proue that the Apostles were infallible in their writings Therfor it is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently by your owne confession a materiall Object of Faith Morover we read 2. Pet. 1.20.21 vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not by mans will was prophesy brought at any tyme but the Holy men of God spake inspired with the holy Ghost Therfor we are obliged to belieue as a truth contayned in scripture that the writers therof spoke and wrote inspired by God And what is oftner repeated in the Prophets then the word of our Lord was made to me or the like Therfor one truth contained in scripture is that they wrote by divine inspiration Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words The Apocalyps of Jesus Christ which God gaue him c blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy which God gaue him or inspired into his mynd and so it is contained in scripture and a materiall Object of our Faith and his Apocalyps is the word of God Which Truth being declared by S. John men are bound to belieue it as a matter of Faith though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalyps by other meanes for example by immediate Revelation or Inspiration as S. John himself came to know them vnless you will say that men may reject what an Apostle hath set downe in writing Doth not S. Peter also 2. Epist Cap. 3.15.16 teach that S. Paul wrote his Epistles by wisdom and inspiration from God Therfor it is a materiall object of Faith that S. Paules Epistles are the word of God even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them or had knowne them by some other meanes Therfor your Doctrine that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the conteÌ„ts of scripture though we deny scripture itself is clearly against scripture and repugnant to a truth contayned therin 24. Ninthly and lastly in stead of an argument I may express a just admiration how such a Doctrine as this could appeare in a Book printed in England and approved as agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Fulke a chief man amongst English Protestants saith plainly in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag. 214. Whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures therby be wrayeth himself to be an heretike And hitherto all English and other Protestants haue pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians who rejected all the Scripture as you say one may doe and yet be saved And certainly if men be not obliged to belieue Scripture as a matter of Faith it imports nothing whether they accept or reject it if also they do not belieue it to be the word of God what certaine credit can they giue to it and if Christians did not belieue it to be such they would account it very great foolishnesse to belieue Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to all Philosophy and naturall Reason and depriue men of those things to which nature is most inclined vpon any Testimony or Authority less then Divine And this your Doctrine is less tolerable because you are not able to bring in favour therof any one argument deserving answer 25. You say indeed Pag 116. N. 159. that without knowing or believing scripture one may performe the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospel and not that it is contayned in these or these Bookes 26. But this is a plaine begging the Question to suppose or affirme without proofe that one condition of the new Covenant is not to belieue scripture to be the word of God Yourself Pag 134. N. 13. expressly teach that among the conditions which Christ requires one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to hane beene revealed by him Now that scripture hath bene revealed by God is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirme that they were messengers of God and Infallible in all matters which they
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith But you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. Ye are the salt of the earth said our Saviour to his Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
a confused aggregatum per accidens of truths different in nature and kind and as I may say to incorporate with Gods word Apocryphall Writings which are so called not because they may not be true but because they are not Divine as the dictates of humane prudence are not and do you not cosen people who belieue that all is scripture which is contayned in S. Paules Epistles You say the Bible hath bene confirmed by Miracles I aske whether all truths coÌ„tayned in it haue beene so coÌ„firmed or no If they haue seing you say here N. 31. it is impossible God should set his hand and seaâ—e to the confirmation of a falshood at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God and growne to be matters of Faith though we should falfly suppose they were not such in vertue of his teaching theÌ„ as our Saviour sayd If yee will not belieue me beleeue the workes Joa 10.38 If you say all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles it is as good in order to vs as if none had bene so confirmed since the Miracles themselves do not specify what in particular they confirme and what not and so we can only belieue in generall that some Points contayned in the Bible are Truths but this is not enough to belieue with certainty any one in particular Besides all this S. Paul in counselling virginity counsells the same which our B. Saviour had done before as is recorded Matth 12.12 and therfor he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such and spoke not out of humane prudence as you would haue him If it be objected how then doth he say I speak not but our Lord Ianswer It cannot be sayd I speak not by inspiration but our Lord for what an incongruous speach were that But I speak signifyes I counsell advise command or permit by antithesis to those other words V 10. Not I giue command but our Lord. You know Catholiques are wont to alledg this Chapter of S. Paul to proue as a Point of Faith the counsell of perperuall virginity and yet never any of our Adversaryes haue excepted against this Argument by saying S. Paul professes to deliver that matter only as a dictate of humane reason and not as a Divine Revelation which had been a cleare and vnanswerable reply that we could not proue by that place perpetuall virginity to be more perfect as a Point of Faith if they had bene of your mynd and they might easily haue told vs that we could not proue an Article of Faith by words which the Apostle himself professes to containe but a humane dictamen But so it is They who once forsake Gods Church learne only and practise and teach others this lesson Evill men and seduce â—s shall prosper to the worse erring and driving into errours 2 â—â—noth 3. V. 32. 42. I would gladly make an end of this matter But first I must aske how you can say N. 32. If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speakes and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote For who ever pretended that S. Paules judgment was Gods command Contrarily when his judgment is that such a thing is no command of God we do most firmely belieue that it is no command because we are sure that he was no less assisted by Inspiration in saying V. 12. it was no command speake I not our Lord than when V. 10. he declared a command not I but our Lord. 43. Now vpon the whole matter it followes out of this your Errour that although all things necessary to be believed were contayned in scripture yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule or any Rule at all for Christian Faith seing we cannot be absolutely certaine when the writers therof set downe divine Revelations or only dictates of humane reason yea and as you say S. Paul was not inspired by God when he Counselled virginity and consequently might haue erred therin so we cannot be sure that indeed he gaue any such judgment or counsell but that as in counselling so in writing and setting downe that counsell he was no more assisted by Inspiration thaÌ„ in giving it And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintayned about the sayd Texts of S. Paul Chap 4. N. 9. Pag 44. Certainly if the Apostles did sometymes write out of their owne private judgment or spirit though it were granted that themselves could discerne the diversity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniversall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleare that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although each mans private spirit were admitted for direction of himself yet it were not vse full for teaching others Thus you say P. â—41 N. 27 A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme Pag. 62. N. 25 that Bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliver Divine Revelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing therof if once we deny their vniversall infallibility A fourth Errour is set downe in your Pag 62. N. 24. and Pag 141. N. 27. where you profess to know no other meanes to be assured of the scriptures incorruption then you haue that any other Booke is incorrupted and that your assurance of both is of the same kind and condition though this for scripture be farre greater for the degree both Morall assurances and neither physicall or Matematicall 44. If this Doctrine may pass for true it will necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of scripture must not only be of the same kind but be farr less for the degree of it seing the bookes of prophane Authors haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men Atheists Pagans Jewes Turkes and Christians wheras the Bible was either vnknowen or impugned or not much regarded by all except Christians and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian Tymes stood so with the Jewes that the Old scripture was once lost as some say or at least lay hid and Christians had not those commodityes to transcribe faithfully Copyes of the new Testament which pagans had for publishing their Bookes Whence it comes to pass that we find not so many divers readings in Cicero Virgill and other prophane bookes as vve find in scripture To which if we add the many vulgar Translations and Editions to what vncertainty shall we be brought if we proceed only by humane morall assurance of scripture without any living visible Guide the Church so directed by
practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the church fall into Errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not fail the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall writers are the foundation of the Church therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or
so all comes to be vncertaine vnless we admit some infallible Living guide 78. But here I must reflect how apt you are in every occasion to write contradictoryes You say of the places of Scripture wherby we proue the in fallibility of the Church that they are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other aâ—d made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority You say that those places are more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible which signifyes that it was not possible and yet a few lines after you affirme that it is possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it Is the same thing not possible aÌ„d possible or not possible aÌ„d yet not improbable Beside you say it is more likly those places which we alledg for the infallibility of the Church haue bene corrupted if it had been possible than any other aÌ„d made to speake as they do for our advantage Wherin you confess that actually some places of Scripture speake for our advantage and then who are you to controwle Gods Word and speak against those for whose advantage it speakes Morover you say no proof can be pretended for the infallibility of the Church but incorrupted places of Scripture where you signify that nothing can be proved vnless we know certainly what places be incorrupted Now I aske whether it was possible for vs to corrupt those places which we bring to proue the infallibility of the Church or it was not possible If it were not possible then you wrong vs in saying that it is both possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it If it be possible then as I sayd what certainty haue you that we haue not done it seing you say it is both possible and not improbable that we haue done so Or what certainty can you haue that others haue not done the like in other Texts for defence of their severall Doctrines 79. Lastly You still go vpon a false ground that we cannot proue the Church otherwise then by Scripture wheras we must first proue Scripture by the Church 80. 8. How vncertaine your kind of Tradition is appeares by your owne words which are such as no enemy of Christian Religion could haue vttered more to the prejudice therof than you doe Pag 90. N. 101. Where in the Person of a member of the ProtestaÌ„t Church of England you speake to Catholiks in this manner You haue wronged so exceedingly his Christs Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine which might giue vs just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones what Authority haue you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her Who with forging so many false Storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the Faith of all Storyes Questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who haue brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of Christ ô portentuous vntruth and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make susptâ—ious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull I pray you what good Christians were there before Luther except Roman Catholiques and such as agreed with them And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholicks Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne vncorrupted For if you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so vpwards till we come to Chrict himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embryos yet hatching and in the shell Thus you and then conclude Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farr from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude seeing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 81. Now let the Reader consider 1. If the Roman Church and all those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther that is all true Churches of Christ be such a thing as he describes what can they contribute to make vp any part of his vniversall Tradition Yea she must needs make it suspected for false fallacious fraudulent And then what Tradition will remayne creditable or even considerable The Greeke Church agreed and at this day agrees with Catholiques against Protestants as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants for which cause they did directly refuse to joyne with Luther and his Associates The Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy or vse Circumcision or for the rest agree with the Greek and Roman Church and they can contribute little to your Tradition I desire the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I haue now sayd of the Greek and other Churches Since then you blast the credit of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her against Protestants there will remayne no Tradition at all 82. 2. You say That we by forging Miracles Might giue just occasion had you no assurance of them but our Authority to suspect the true ones of Christ and by forging so many false storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the faith of all Storyes questionable if you had no other ground for your belief of them but our Authority This is your Assertion or Major Proposition to which if an enemy of Christian Religion will subsume and add this Minor which is evidently true But you can haue no assurance of Miracles and ground for belief of Storyes but by our Testimony or Tradition as I haue clearly proved What will be the Conclusion but this That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ and Question all Storyes Behold the effect of your Tradition This I confirme out of what you
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you
haue it a necessary introduction to Faith I do not see how you can say this seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying as we haue seene a little before That Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith which either contaynes a falshood or is confessedly subject to errour as de facto you Protestants proclaime that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse and as you speake damnable errours and you also say Pag 148. N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either doe vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it And therfor you expressly conclude in these words we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Traditiō But then how is that true which we haue heard you say The Church is though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it For seing Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith and that you belieue the Scripture not for the private spirit or other criteria as some Protestants doe nor vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition it followes evidently that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith And this you cannot deny if you remember your owne Doctrine That men may belieue and be saved without Scripture but not without the Church according to your owne saying I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God Therfor say I the Church is a more necessary not only introduction to Faith but also Foundation and proofe of it then Scripture can be but if you will persist in this your Assertion that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men is not the Foundation of Faith and that Scripture both in truth and according to your owne Principles must be receyved from the Church what remaynes but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion 91. Lastly to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority may appeare by what happened to myself who some yeares agoe falling vpon a wicked Book vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu about the Authority of Scripture and as printed in a Catholique cittie it came to my minde that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes My thoughts proved Propheticall For since that tyme a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such though vpon better information he declares afterward in the same Work that the Book was written by an Heretique and printed among Heretiques 92. And here I will end this Chapter having proved divers wayes that according to severall Doctrines of yours Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect one although we should falsely suppose that it did contayne evidently and in particular all Points necessary to be believed Wherfor it remaynes that seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith we declare what that Meanes is Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters did Virtually and implicitely containe and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly as a conclusion the Title of this Chapter For since Christian Faith is the Gift of God and infallible since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith no nor can be any Rule of Faith and much less a perfect Rule it followes necessarily that there must alwayes be extant a Living Uisible Judg which can be no other but the Church of God against which our B. Saviour promised that the gates of Hell should not prevaile This Deduction is so cleare that you are forced to acknowledg it Pag 326. N. 4. Where you affirme That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine of the infallibility of Christian Faith true that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility Seing then both Catholikes and Protestants and al Christians firmely belieue Christian Faith to be infallible and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility or tell Christians that for ought they know all that they belieue of God of Christ of Scripture of the Resurrection of the Dead of Heaven of Hell of all the Articles of Christian Religion may proue no better than a dreame or an imposture or fiction Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise and the prudence of the prudent 1. Cor. 1.19 This Man was picked out among all the men in England to impugne the Roman Church his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University and was excessively cryed vp by his friends neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church than hee But with what success No other but this That Protestants must either deny with this man all Certainty of Scripture and Christianity or els acknowledg not the Scripture but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō that is they must either renoūce Christianity by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith or abandon Protestancy by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church and sufficiency of Scripture alone and so must returne to belieue and obey the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councells and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also by what hath bene sayd about Translations Additions Detractions Corruptions and loss of some Scriptures which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity vnless we believed an infallible Authority able to supply all such defects and provide for all events 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 64. N. 19. There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons learned and vnlearned which the ignorant may
regeneration Tit 3. And Baptisme is a meane or instrument by which is made the communication of Christs benefits For by Baptisme Christ cleanseth and sanctifyeth Ephes 5. Yea he saith expressly The testimonyes of Scripture are manifest which as they cannot be denyed so they ought not to be shifted of Ephes 5. Clensing her with the laver of water in the Word Joan 3. Vnless one he borne againe of water c. Act 22. Be Baptized and wash away thy sinnes 1. Pet 3. Speaknig of water c He sayth Baptisme being of the like forme of the Arke of Noë saveth vs. And he concludes These being most manifest tectimonyes which expressly ascribe Efficacy to Sacraments and declare what that Efficacy is are not to be perverted by tropes from their simple and native signisication which the proper signification of the words giveth and so the ancient Fathers haue vnderstood these testimonyes simply as they sound Behold the Doctrine of a chiefest Protestant proved out of Scripture and confessed to be the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers interpreting Scriptures so as our Catholike Doctrine comes to be approved by Protestants by Scripture and by the Ancient Fathers and by Protestants interpreting Scripture all which Poynts are further taught by the Protestant Urbanus Regius In 1. Part Operum in Cathechismo minori Folio 105. confessing that the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constraine him to belieue that children dying vnbaptized are damned The same Doctrine is delivered by Sarcerius ād by Confess Augustana The Protestants of Saxony and sundry other Protestant Writers as may be seene in the Tripl Cord Chap 20. Sect 4. Pag 456. 61. Now we may reflect First seing these Protestants for their Doctrine of the necessity of Baptisme rely vpon Scripture as indeed the words of Scripture are as cleare for this Point as any can be I would gladly know what certaine Ground you or any man can haue that so many learned Protestants to say nothing of all Fathers Antiquity and moderne Catholike Writters haue erred in this their Interpretation of Scripture Is it not your owne Rule That when men truly desirous to know the truth and of vpright meaning I hope you belieue Protestants to be such at least most of them differ about the sense of Scripture it is a signe that such places are not evident And seing we now treat of a Point which at least is necessary to be knowen whether or no it be necessary otherwise we cannot be assured that we want nothing necessary to salvation it followes that Scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowen and therfor we must haue recourse to a Living Judg. 2. Seing so many of those whom you call brethren teach our Catholique Doctrine whatsoever you object against vs makes no less against them 3. Your saying That Baptisme is a casuall thing and in the power of man to conferr though yet many learned Protestants hold Baptisme to be necessary is a prophane speech as if God had not a most particular Providence in disposing all rhings for the good of his Elect particularly in things necessary to salvation Why do you not likewise object against all Christians their making the salvation of every one depend on the preaching of the Gospell of which our Saviour spoke when he also commanded his Apostles to conferr Baptisme Matth 28.19 which you may also say is a casuall thing and in the power of man to doe or omitt as if God could not be sure how to order infallibly all events or effects vnless they fall out by necessity Nay I say more Our God is so good and desirous that all be saved that if men did strictly concurre and cooperate with his holy Providence and Grace in all occasions things would so fall out as that mediatè or immediatè proximè or remotè one way or other there would never want sufficient Meanes for infants to be baptized So farr is this matter from being a casuall thing And still we must consider that infants dying without baptisme are deprived of salvation not for the fault of those who omitted to Baptize them nor properly for want of Baptisme itself but for Originall sin once contracted and never abolished by that meanes and instrument which God hath appointed for that End and Effect as he might in his Justice haue left all Mankind in their sins without providing for them a Redeemer according to the proceeding which he held with the apostating Angells and therfore this Doctrine That children dying without Baptisme cannot be saved implyes no cruelty absurdity or strangeness to those who believe other Poynts of Christian Faith Especially if we consider that although they shall not enjoy felicity in Heaven yet they shall lead their life with much content by contemplation and also by considering that perhaps if their Creatour had granted them longer life yea and procured them to be baptized they might haue dyed in actuall deadly sinne and haue bene damned in Hell with Poena Damni Sensus both of being deprived of the beatificall Vision and of insufferable torments of sense and what greater absurdity is it that infants should Misse of salvation for want of intention in the Minister then if they had not bene in the occasion of not being baptized at all by reason of some other impediment And therfor I see no reason why we should for such cases of want of Intention in the Minister or of due Forme or Matter haue recourse to any extraordinary Meanes which should not be extraordinary but ordinary if God did provide it whensoever the infant is not baptized vpon whatsoever occasion or impediment and so indeed Baptisme should never be absolutely necessary to salvation Besides seing there can be no certainty of extraordinary meanes the matter will still remaine doubtfull and objections must be answered some other waie 62. But you will object That at least we differ from Protestants in suspending the salvation of infants on the Baptizers Intention 63. Answer I haue shewed that some learned Protestants of chief note require the same intention which we doe and also that every iudicious man will certainly judg that there is no danger of invalidity in Baptisme for want of intention but rather in respect of the Matter or Forme and yet not only the Protestant Church of England teaches that the Matter and Forme are necessary for Baptisme but also divers other Protestants deliver the same Doctrine as may be seene in The Triple Cord Pag 457. and the thing is evident of it self to every one who vnderstands the termes of Matter and Forme If men may be damned for their Actuall sinnes though they be supposed to be invincibly ignorant of necessary or fundamentall points of Faith as Potter confesses why may not infants be deprived of Heaven for originall sinne though theire want of Baptisme be not immediatly voluntary to any 64. Your last Objection N. 69. is against Our making he Reall Presence of Christ in
is profanely applyed to our present case wherin it is an vnspeakable benefit to haue our liberty not taken away but moderated directed and elevated to the End of Eternall Happyness If in any case certainly in this that saying Licentia omnes sumus deteriores is most true as lamentable experience teaches in so many Heresyes and so implacable contentions of Heretikes among themselves by reason of the liberty which every one presumes to take in interpreting Holy Scripture And for avoiding so great an inconvenience and mischeife it is necessary to acknowledg some infallible Living Judg and so your Rule for Liberty being rightly applyed proves against yourself And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility I must returne against you your owne words Me thinkes in all Reason you that presume to take away Priviledges once granted by God himself for the Eternall Good of soules should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt especially it being a Rule Privilegia sunt amplianda chiefly when they proceed from a Soveraigne Power and are helped by that Dictate of Reason Melior est conditio possidentis And in the meane tyme you are hee who breake that Rule Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate by pretending that men are obliged to submit Reason though seeming never so certaine and evident to the contents of Scripture which yet you teach not to be manifestly and certainly but only probably true Against which is your owne saying Praesumitur pro libertate vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur as it happens in your fallible and only probable Faith which cannot be manifestly proved to be true for if it could be so proved Christian Faith should be absolutely certaine and not only probable And so continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary 76. I will not here loose tyme in examining your saying Pag 101. N. 126. The Bookes of Scripture which were receyved by those that receyved fowest had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them as they all had which were receyved by any all the necessary parts of the Gospell being contayned in every one of the Gospells Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospells and omitted in others part of the Doctrine of Christianity taught by the Apostles to Christians Besides what can you vnderstand by these words Pag 101. N. 125. For ought appeares by your reasons the Church never had infallibility And yet Charity Maintayned spoke of the Church of Christ as it was before any Scripture of the new TestameÌ„t was written which Church He proved to be infallible because at that tyme there could be no other infallible Rule or Judg which is a cleare aÌ„d convincing ReasoÌ„ And so I hope it appeares by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility 77. Sixthly You haue these words Pag 115. N. 156 Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and vniversall Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to vs. Therfore nothing but Scripture can challeng our belief Now I saie in like manner it is neither delivered in Scripture nor otherwise hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition that Scripture is not at this tyme joyned with some infallible Living Judg as once it was or that the Church was ever devested of that Authority and infallibility which it had or that God had provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of a Living and infallible Guide as you say or that Scripture alone without Tradition is the Rule of Faith Therfore none of these Points can challeng our belief My saying hath bene proved hertofore and yourself confess that you do not proue out of Scripture that with the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church but contrarily that they did remayne togeather for a tyme. 78. Seaventhly I take an Argument from your owne Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall Object of Faith or an Article which we belieue To which Maior I subsume thus But that Meanes by assenting to which alone I belieue all other Points must itself be assented to and believed for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not belieue Therfore Scripture alone cannot be the Meanes by which I come to belieue all other Points And seing no other ordinary Meanes to produce Faith can be assigned besides Scripture and the Church we must inferr that the Church is the ordinary Meanes to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently even according to your owne Doctrine she must be infallible Otherwise as you say of the Meanes to decide controversyes Pag 35. N. 7. We can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing 79. Eightly You confess that the Church erring in any Fundamentall Point ceases to be a Church and seing you also profess that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamentall you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not fayled vnless we belieue that she is infallible and cannot fayle And yet most Protestants graâ—â— that the Church cannot fayle our Saviour having promised tha◠〈◊〉 gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds in his Answer to the Preface Pag â—3 saith 〈◊〉 belieue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church â—â—th continued and never shall faile so long as the world endureth And we account is a sprophane Heresy to teach otherwise And Potter avoucheth that Christ hath promised the Church shall never fayle as you confesse Pag 277. N. 61. That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctour affirmes that God hath promised absolutely And yourself say Pag 106 N. 140. VVâ— yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceyue God hath promised so much By the way if according to Whitaker it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fayle and that according to Potter God hath promised so much absolutly yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church and that you also conceiue our Saviour Christ hath done so how dare you say Pag 15. N. 18. The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand belieue to be a damnable Heresy Is it not a damnble Heresy to belieue that Christ can faile of his promise Besides since these Protestants profess and you also conceaue that God hath promised the Church shall certainly be assisted so far as not to erre in Fundamentall Points I aske whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God or no Whatsoever you answer for Protestants and yourself
purpose in these words We vtterly deny the Church to be an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls for to say so were to oblige ouerselves to find some certaine society of men of whom we might be certaine that they neither do nor can erre in Fundamentalls nor in declaring what is Fundament all And consequently to make any Church an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed To which Assertion of yours I subsume thus But there must be alwayes a visible Church discernable from all false Congregations which Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points of Faith Therfore there must alwayes be a discernable Church Infallible in all things she proposes and requires to be believed 83. Thirdly It is deduced That even according to the most rigid Protestants God doth not ordinarily affoard his Grace for bringing men to Faith by the only consideration of his Creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by other secet meanes but by teaching preaching and the like By which consideration we haue not only confuted what you sayd Pag 100. N. 123. that men might be made Faithfull without either necessity of Scripture or Church but that also is answered which you Object Pag 356. N. 38. where you aske Why should not I be made a true and Ortodoxe Christian by believing all the Doctrine of Christ though I cannot deriue my descent from a Perpetuall Succession that believed it before me To which demand the Answer is very easy and convincing to all such as against the Pelagians belieue true Christian Faith to be the Gift of God and producible only by his speciall Grace and Inspiration which he gives only by the meanes appointed in his Holy providence that is Preaching Teaching and Ministery of his visible Church as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith by Meanes of the Gospell as Paul tells vs that Faith comes by hearing And if any will take vpon them to belieue by force of naturall ReasoÌ„ or by RevelatioÌ„ in Scripture vnderstood by their owne wit aÌ„d interpretatioÌ„ they shall be sure to be miserably deceyved aÌ„d be far enough from exercising any true Act of Divine supernaturall Faith necessary to Salvation Now the Church by Divine Institution cannot consist without a Succession of Bishops from the Apostles to the worlds end and therfore God gives not his Assistance for the production of true Faith except by the Ministery of such a Church as is governed by Bishops though no man denyes but that he might haue done otherwise by ordaining and ordering another course of his holy Providence as Protestants will grant that God might haue saved men without Scripture though in their opinion de facto he will not do it but that it even taken alone is not only sufficient but necessary to salvation 84. Fourthly I deduce That the Premises considered it may justly appeare to every Christian very strange that Pag 150. N. 41. having cited these words of Charity Maintained If the Church be not an Infallible teacher why are we commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church You would answer in this manner For commands to sâ—eke the Church I haue not yet met with any and I belieue you if you were to shew them would be yourself to seeke But yet if you could produce some such we might seeke the Church to many good purposes without supposing her a guide Infallible And then for hearing and obeying the Church I would faine know whether none may be heard and obeyed but those that are infallible Whether particular churches Governours Pastors Parents be not to be heard and obeyed Or whether all these be infallible I wonder you will thrust vpon vs so often these worne out objections without taking notice of their Answers But all this is clearly confuted by what hath bene sayd already And 1. What Christian would not wonder as I sayd to heare you affirme that you haue not met with any commands to seeke the Church If the Ministery of the Church be the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith and as even yourself confess a necessary Introduction to it if Faith come by hearing if in Her only we con expect to find true Pastours and Doctours if it be necessary to know her as Calvin confesses if Faith remission of sins and salvation cannot be had except by her Meanes I beseech you are not these sufficient commands to seeke Her or rather may we not call this command of seeking her either the command of Commands or els a command implyed in all the commands of Believing Hoping Loving Repenting and seeking salvation seing these cannot be had but by seeking and finding her and is it not evident that if we be obliged to attaine an End we are bound to seeke out the Meanes which are necessary for that End Nay do you not speake inconsequently to yourself while you deny not but that there is a command to heare and obey the Church and yet deny that there is any command to seeke her It seemes you are indeed a child of Adam who would hide yourself from God and from those Superiours whom he hath appointed to guide and governe you in his place If one belieue that there are some whom by Gods appointment he is to heare and obey in order to Heaven and Happyness is it not his part or hath he not a most strict obligation to do his best endeavour to find out such persons or such a Congregation But say you we might seeke the Church to many good purposes without supposing Her a Guide Infallible No doubt but speaking in generall we may seeke one without supposing him to be a Guide Infallible as one may seeke some lost sheepe such as you are to bring them from Heresy to the Church and from Socinianisme to true Reason Which will not be guided by itself but by a Superiour Maister appoynted by God without supposing them to be Infallible Guides But when we seeke a Church from which alone we con learne with certainty required to Faith what Scripture is Canonicall and all Points of Faith necessary to salvation neither of which we can learne from Scripture we must suppose that Church to be Infallible Thus all they who belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith whether totall or not consequently belieue it to be infallible And Pag 35. N. 7. you confess that the Meanes to decide controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an Vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth And if the Church were not Infallible one of those many good purposes which you fancy to yourself in seeking Her would be that we should certainly expose ourselves to danger of being perniciously deceived in matters concerning Eternall Salvation seing as I sayd we haue no other certaine and sufficient Meanes to belieue scripture and other Articles of Faith And now I beseech you tell me whether we heare and obey all particular
Maintayned it followes that they remaine still in force and proue this most necessary Truth Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith but Tradition and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion And whosoever will take an other way will haue reason and God grant it proue not too late to tremble at those words of Uincent Lirinens contra Heres Cap 23. concerning Origen Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones Veterum magisteria contemnens quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta Et paulò post Non audies inquit verba Prophetae illius While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions and magistery of the Ancient he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet God grant that every one heare this wholsome advise The neglect therof alone hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours 101. But because you do without end object that we cannot proue the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle proving the Church by Scripture and Scripture by the Church which is in effect to proue the Church by the Church and the Scripture by Scripture I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection CHAP V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH 1. I Say in what manner and order For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church inremaines only now to declare how we can do it without falling into a Circle proving the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture which you object without end though if you be a man of any solid learning it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectiō We grant that with different sorts of persons we must proceed in a different way If one belieue not the Church or Notes proprietyes and prerogatives belonging to Her and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture as contrarily to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority what Scripture is Canonicall and what is the true sense therof by informing him what Canon the Church receyves and what Interpretation she gives Thus in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence Vnity Authority Sanctity Propagation efficacy Infallibility and other Propertyes of the Church But speaking per se and ex natura rei the Church is proved independently of Scripture which we receyue from the Church as you grant which was in Being before the Scripture as all must yield and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church For none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible and many were converted to the true Church before they could belieue the Scripture as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant that there be Meanes and Arguments wherby some men may gaine such credit as others may and ought vnder payne of damnation to belieue that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God and Teachers of Divine Doctrine 2. Thus Moyses the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him did proue themselves true Preachers by many effectuall and most certaine inducements independently of the Old or New Testament yea S. Irenaeus relates as you expressly grant that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ his Aposties and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion proved themselves to be sent by God being verifyed of them He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me by Miracles Sanctity of life Efficacy of Doctrine admirable repentance of sinners Chang of manners Conversion of all sorts of Persons of all Countryes through the whole world and this to a Faith Profession and Religion that proposes many Points as necessary to be believed aboue and seemingly contrary to humane Reason and against mens naturall inclinations togeather with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs Abnegation of Confessours Purity of Uirgins Fortitude even of the youngest Age and weaker sexe and other admirable conspicuous Notes and strong inforcements to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Uictory over all sorts of enemyes Conversion of Infidels all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last and it seemes God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther and other moderne Heretikes for the greater confusion of them and glory of his Church and the same I say of the name Catholique which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles particularly in the Sea of Rome Vnity Stability Perpetuity The Church I say by these and the like evident Arguments proves that she deserves credit as the first Doctours and Preachers did and consequently that her Doctrine and Definitions in Matters concerning Faith are certainly true And we may with all truth avouch that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church or despises them as insufficient opens an inevitable way for Jewes Turks Gentils and all enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the truth therof which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church and in no other Congregation Moreover as the Apostles and Apostolicall men were not believed to be Infallible because they wrote Scripture but contrarily their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture wherby we are uery sure not to run in a
could not haue believed Her in any one and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles but may erre in Points not Fundamentall both which things are granted by Protestants I hope you will not deny but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises must be That she lost part and kept part of that infallibility with which she was endued before Scripture was written and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture that the Church by the writing therof was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles beside what I sayd even now that according to your instance of a way the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility when by writing of some Scriptures some points were made cleare in writing which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide that is the Church And now consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you as you with your wanted humility speake to him jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis 45. Your N 141. hath beene answered in my confutation of your N. 124. concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church in your N. 142. you say to Charity Maintayned For particular rites and ceremonyes and orders for government our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul let all things be done decently and in order But what order is fittest i. e. what tyme what Place what Manner c is fittest that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you meane that he hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in Generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content yourselfe or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 46. Answer My hope was at the first general view of this section to haue answered it in very few words But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment that to vnfold them will require some little more tyme and paynes First you cite Ch Ma. imperfectly His words Part 1. P. 69. N. 23. are He Dr. Potter affirmes that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament and will he so vnworthily and â—â—justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Expecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonyes Rites Punishments Judgments Sacraments Sacrifices c were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue To these words you say I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what particulars And then you distinguish Rites and Ceremonyes and Orders for Governement from matters of Faith which indeed is no distinction if the matter be duly considered For although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes may chance to be of themselves indifferent and neither forbidden or commanded to be practised or omitted yet to be assured that indeed they are indifferent and not sinfull or superstitious and so infectiue of the whole Church we need some infallible authority And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy or Governement of the Church as I sayd hertofore which is a Fundamentall point if any can be Fundamentall to the constituting a Church For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said that our aviour left to his Church the determination or declaration of particulars but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person or community without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull and so a Determination or Ordination must suppose or imply in fact a declaration Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites and Ceremonyes because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini quin Ecclesijs nostris notam haereseos inurerem Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam Thus your demand what particulars Charity Maitâ—yned vnderstood is answered namely that he vnderstood all particulars which occasion might require to be ordained determined and declared by the Church but in the meane tyme where or when did Ch Ma say or dreame that which you say is apparently false that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in generall that â—â—â—re to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue Your conscience cannot but beare witness against your owne words that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine that we are bound to belieue whatsoever is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God professing every where that this is the Ground for which he avouches that of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must be in a damnable state and that for this cause we are bound to belieue every particular truth contained in Scripture or defined by the Church which are millions And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but your imputation is apparently false Yet to say the truth that Doctrine which you say is apparently false aÌ„d no less falsely imputed to vs might be very true if it should stand or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility 47. The Church say you being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue To which I may answer as you say to Charity Maintayned I wonder you would impugne that as apparently false which must be apparently true if the ground of all your doctrine be true That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe and determines what he is to belieue and so your kind of Church being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner it followes that it is left to all Believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles which
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
fault it was in yielding too much For indeed Protestants doe not agree even in that fundamentall point that Christ is our Saviour or in Faith in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world Seing I haue shewed in divers occasions that they differ toto genere in their explication and beliefe of those Articles and accordingly Morton teaches that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Sone of God and Saviour of the world as may be seene in Ch Ma Part. 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 103. and since the beliefe of those Articles is required to the consticuting of the very essence of a Church in the Lowest degree and they doe not agree in them it followes that they doe not agree in the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree As for Divine Precepts and Divine Promises which you say are clearly delivered in Scripture they belong to Agenda and not to Credenda according to your distinction and so men may agree in them and disagree in points of simple belief 38. Lastly If you had a minde to defend Protestants you should not alledg their agreement in such Points as they haue received from vs but in those wherin Luther and his fellowes forsooke the Faith of our Church with which all true Christian Churches did clearly agee and in those Protestants are so farre from agreement among themselves that in the chiefest matters divers of the most learned of them stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and vniversally it is most true that their agreement is only actuall and meerely accidentall in regard that they acknowledg no living infallible Judge of Controversyes to make them agree in case they should chance to doubt of those points wherin they casually agree and so still in actu primo they are in a disposition to disagree whereas Catholiques believing an infallible Judge are in a continuall disposition or a virtuall and potentiall agreement even in those things wherin particular persons may happen not to agree yea those many millions of Truths which you say are contayned in Scripture could not for ought Protestants know be so much as one if your doctrine were true that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith which men are obliged to belieue And yet such is your inconstancy and spirit of contradicting yourself you say heere 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 in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to believe the Scripture Sr. If all Christians consent in the belief of Scripture how is not Scripture believed And if it be believed how is it not a materiall object of our belief or the thing which we belieue Nay you say no man at this tyme can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue the Bookes of Scripture and so you declare that if Christ be a materiall object of our Faith the Scripture must also be such 39. But there remaines yet an other contradiction no less manifest and more strange than this which I now mentioned Heere you say expresly no man can pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must belieue Scripture and you proue this your Assertion because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture which proof to be of any force must suppose that there is alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall Reason Otherwise one might haue the same reason to belieue in Scripture which he hath to belieue in Christ and yet be obliged to belieue in Christ and not be obliged nor haue an equall necessity to belieue the Scripture vnder danger of damnation Is not all this cleare Now I beseech you remember what you write Pag. 116. N. 159. where you treate of this very matter that is of the belief of Scripture and of the belief of the contents thereof that is among other Points of our belief in Christ and you endeavour to proue that God requires of vs vnder pain of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherein they are contained Behold your Assertion contrary to that which we haue heard you say that the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture were not doubted of without danger of damnation But let vs see whether as you contradict yourself in your Assertions you doe not the same in the reason you giue for them You goe forward in the saied Pag. 116. N. 159. and say Not but that it were now very strang and vnreasonable if a man should belieue the matters of these Bookes and not the Authority of the Bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should haue reason to feare he did not belieue that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief whereof there is an equall reason No Is there not alwaies an equall necessity for the beliefe of c. How then did you proue that men cannot without danger of damnation doubt of the Bookes of Scripture as he cannot doubt of Christ because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must do so that is belieue the Scripture 40. Yet this is not all that heere offers itself about your Contradictions You say we haue the same reason to belieue the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture which we haue for our belief in Christ I suppose you meane vniversall Tradition for which you profess to receiue the Scripture How then were you obliged to belieue in Christ and teach that Christ is a materiall object of our Faith and yet that Scripture is not such an object If vniversall Tradition be sufficient to declare an Object to be revealed by God and the same vniversall Tr. dition deliver to vs Christ and Scripture it is a Contradiction to say the one is revealed and consequently is a materiall object of our Faith and not the other Or if one be revealed and not the other than you contradict your owne saying that there is the same reason for believing them both seing the one hath the Formall reason or Motiue of Faith namely divine Revelation which the other must want if you will needs deny it to be a Materiall Object of Faith And I hope to be revealed and not revealed are very different and not the same things or Reasons 41. In your N. 50. you fall Heavy vpon Cha. Ma. for saying
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
schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundamētall ād not fūdamēntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God ād so in fact all points being fūdamētall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue givē a greater C Ma sayd that Luther ād his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religiō some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation ād not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written
ventis vocatur Ecclesia Quomodo vocatur Vndique in Trinitate vocatur Non vocatur nisi per baptismum in nomine Patris Filij Spiritus Sancti Will you now limit vndique to places round about or adjacent and not grant that it signifies the whole world The learned Fevardentius in his Annotations vpon this place of S. Irenaeus not only affirmes that by eos qui sunt vndique fideles all Churches of the whole world are vnderstood but proves it with much clearness and erudition observing among other things that it is saied Ad hanc Ecclesiam not ad vrbis amplitudinem populorum frequentiam non ad imperij culmen non ad Caesarum majestem sed ad hanc Ecclesiam Thus your first objection being proved to be grounded meerely vpon a confidence that vndique must be taken in this place as you would haue it and withall perceiving that even this will not come home to your purpose without an other voluntary alteration for it is no less difficult a sense to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there froÌ„ those who are euery where than to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there from those who are round about you fall vpon a conjecture that in all probability in stead of conservata it should be observata although no copie either printed or manuscript reads it in that manner and suppose it were observata the difficulty would still remaine what observata might signifie whether observed that is kept and maintayned and then it were all one with conserved or observed that is marked found perceived or the like as you would haue it not considering that by this conceypt you wholy alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus and substitute an other For whereas that holy Bishop and Martyr grounds his proofe against Heretiques vpon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church you make him vrge these Heretiques only by the Testimony of people round about that Citie because they never observed any alteration of doctrine in that Church which therefore according to this your fiction must be judged by the neighbouring people and not they directed by her which kind of reasoning had bene a meere begging the Question and no effectuall confutation of those Heretiques who would instantly answer that both Rome and the adjacent people had altered the Apostlike Tradition by holding doctrines contrary to theirs nor could they haue bene confured otherwise than by supposing that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ secured from all errour against Faith and to vse your owne lately recited words to say that the people about Rome would haue observed it if there had bene any alteration in the Church of Rome had bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being still to vse your owne words not evident in it self according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold that many errours crept into the Church without being observed and plainly denied by S. Irenaeus his adversaries and not proved by him especially if we consider that as yourself speak The Church of Rome had a Powerfull principality over all the adjacent Churches it had bene more probable that she might haue led them into errour which they would haue embraced as an Apostolicall Tradition than that they would or could haue corrected her if indeed she had bene conceyved to be subject to errour no less than the adjacent Churches Now as for the difficulty of those words In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who were every where yourself must answer it seing you hold your conjecture of observata to be but probable and that all hitherto haue read it and do still reade it conservata and that even though you reade it observata it will be a hard sense to say In which Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwaies bene observed from those who are every where and if in stead of from you say by hath bene observed by those who are every where though in that acception you must take Ab in a different sense when it is sayd ab Apostolis from and when it is saied ab his qui sunt vndique by we may also say hath bene conserved by those who are every where and the sense will be that in the Roman Church there hath alwaies bene the Tradition from the Apostles which hath also bene conserved in all Churches and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem and because she hath an evident and certaine succession as being founded vpon a Rock and in this sense we may also say that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath bene conserved in the Roman Church as the center of Ecclesiasticall vnity to vse the words of the most learned Perron in his Reply Lib. 1. cap 26. 31. In your N. 30. after other discourses which containe no difficulty which may not be answered by what hath bene saied in divers occasions you come to your old cramben of the Chiliasts or Millenaries of which you say Justine martyr in Dial. cum Tryphon Professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time belieued it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Sr. we haue no â—eason to belieue your word without some proofe And that you may not â—â—use my proofe against you as proceding from one who being a partie may be suspected of partiality I oppose to you a learned ProtestaÌ„t Doctor Ham in his Uiew of c Pag 87.88.89 who convinced by evidence of truth not only confesses and proves the weakeness of that place in S. Iustine to conclude any thing against Catholique Tradition but also demonstrates that your allegation is an egregious falsification while you say Iustine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques For S. Justine expresly affirmes that many doe not acknowledg this doctrine of the 1000. yeares and those many Christians that are of pure and pious opinyon or judgment and that those whom he calls nominall Christians Atheists impious hereticall leaders are they who denyed the resurrection not those that acknowledg the resurrection and denyed the Millennium And the Doctour concludes in these very words By Iustine it cannot be concluded that the 1000. yeares was a matter of Catholike belief in his time but only favourd by him and many others and consequently though that were after condemned in the Church would it not be from this testimony inferred that a Catholick Doctrine much lesse a Tradition were condemned And he gives vs a Rule whereby we may answer all that can be objected out of S. Irenaeus or any other ancient Author saying Pag 91. I confess I acknowledg my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Iustin it appeared I could cite an other highly
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
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
N. 154. I hope you will giue vs leaue to consider whether the motiues to your Church be not impeached and opposed with compulsiues and enforcements from it so others will say of the Motiues to Christian Religion that they are impeached with contrary compulsiues from it besides the sublimity of the Misteryes themselues aboue humane Reason which is apt to doubt of whatsoever it doth not ynderstand as we feare not only bad but also vnknowne pathes and as to our eye the clearest skye if it be almost beyond our kenning seemes to be a kind of darkness Thus then the probability of Chillingworths faith being brought downe frō the highest pretended degree of probability becomes compatible with good and great probability of the contrary side as heate and cold if neither of them be in the most intense degree may stand togeather and consequently the vnderstanding may conceyue not only a possibility but a probability also and a feare that the Christian Religion is false For auoiding which wicked sequele there is no other remedy except to acknowledg Faith to be an Assent certaine and infallible aboue all probability of humane Motiues or arguments of Credibility 19. And in this occasion we may obserue that the examples vsually alleadged to proue that we can no more doubt of the Conclusion drawne from the Arguments of Credibility than a man doubts whether such an one be his father and the like doe not vrge but rather may be retorted For in such cases it is supposed that there are many good reasons for one side for example that such a man is father to such a child c. and none to the contrary But it happeneth otherwise in our case there being many and hards objections obuious to humane reason against the Mysteryes of Faith which may diminish that degree of assent which otherwise might be grounded vpon the Arguments of Credibility if they were considered alone as one could not belieue such a man to be his father if he had some very probable proofes for the contrary with the same firme perswasion as he would doe in case no such proofes did offer themselues and so as I sayd this and the like Arguments and examples may be retorted againist those who bring them and still we must conclude that we cannot belieue Christian Religion as we ought without an absolute certaine ād jnfallible Assent which will more appeare by the Reason following 20. These very Motiues of Credibility manuduce and send vs vp to an Authority which is able to transfuse greater perfection to our Assent than they themselues can giue Because they tell vs of Objects to be belieued for Diuine Reuelation and so proclaime themselves to be only Dispositions and Preparations which being supposed God affords his particular Grace for producing an Act proportionable to his Diuine Testimony as with some proportion by hearing or reading spirituall things the species are excited and God by that occasion giues inspiration for Faith Hope Charity c. aboue the naturall power of the externall words and as Experimentall knowledg by sense is a Disposition to Scientificall knowledg which yet takes not its nature essence and perfection from the senses 21. From hence it followes that men are obliged to belieue Christian Religion not in what manner soeuer but as a Doctrine deliuered and reuealed by God and therfor to be embraced aboue all that is aboue all contrary objects or objections and not to be altered vpon any occasion supposition or authority of men or Angels as S. Paule teaches vs by an impossible supposition to express the matter home Galat 1.8 Although we or an Angel from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized to you be he anathema This admonition or denuntiation of S. Paule must needs suppose Christian Faith to be aboue all probability For it is euidently against reason to joyne togeather these two judgments or Assertions This doctrine is only probable and grounded only in probable and credible Arguments and yet That it is reasonable or necessary òr euen possible to assent to it in such manner as neuer to belieue the contrary though reasons seeming vpon the best examination a man can make better than the former should offer themselues against it seing it is certaine that he cannot be certaine that better reasons cannot possibly be offered For if he be certaine that better reasons for the contrary are not possible his assent is not probable but certaine Therfor since we are not to forsake Christian Religion for whatsoeuer possible motiue or Reason or Authority of Men or Angels we must giue it absolute certainty and not only probability 22. And because this kind of Argument is of greater moment than perhaps appeares at first sight I will dilate it by saying further that according to his Assertion about the probability of faith no Christian yea no man can be setled in any Religion since he must be ready to chang whensoeuer better reasons shal be presented against it neither can he be certaine that he may not sooner or later fynd some such reason For a faith only probable is a perpetuall Temptation to it selfe and we may truly say Accedens tentator dicit in the present Tense seing Probability doth not exclude some feare that the contrary may be true Nay euery consideration about Faith to such men as Chill who loue to be esteemed considering and discoursing men is more than a Temptation it is a yeelding or consent against Faith inuoluing this judgment Perhaps that which I belieue is false and the contrary true 23. Yea this vast absurdity doth not only flow from this doctrine but it is in effect acknowledged by him in express words Pag. 380. N. 72. Where he deeply taxes all Catholiques because they eyther out of idleness refuse the trouble of a scuere tryall of their Religion or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it and therfor for the most part doe it not at all or if they doe it they doe it without indifference without liberty of judgment without a resolution to leaue it if it proue apparentily false My owne experience assures me that in this imputation I doe you Catholiques no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortall sinnes For from hence it followes that seing euery man must resolue he will neuer commit mortall sinne that he must neuer examine the grounds of it at all for stare he should be moued to doubt or if he doe he must resolue that no motiues be they neuer so strong shall moue him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will vphold himselfe in affirme belief of your religion Doth not it appeare by these words that he must haue no such resolution as he reprehends in vs but must be ready to doubt or to leaue his and all Christian Religion And Pag. 326.
N. 4. he endeauours to proue that Faith cannot be absolutely certaine because if it were so any least doubting would destroy it which shewes that doubting may well consist with his kind of probable faith which is that very absurdity which we inferrd as impious against true Religion of which we must resolue neuer to doubt though per jmpossible an Apostle or Angel should moue vs therto as we haue heard out of S. Paule and yet the Authority of an Apostle or perswasion of an Angell should in all reason be preferrd before Faith if it be only probable 24. This inconstancy in Religion appeares further by what he confesses of himselfe Pag. 389. N. 7. where speaking of a command of obedience to the Roman Church he hath these words sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeauour to find it true and am still willing to doe so but the more I seeke the further I am from findinge c. Behold how after so long tyme so much deliberation so many changes of Religion euen after the writing of his Booke he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed Also P. 184. N. 90. he sayth Shew vs any way and do not say but proue it to haue come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to vs and we are ready to followit Neither do we expect Demonstration herof but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary Agreable to this is his professing Preface N. 2. that he had a trauellers indifferency most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it And N. 5. he professes that his constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heauen which for the present seemed to him the most probable A poore comfort and miserable faith only probable and of no longer continuance than for the tyme present I willingly omitt that his deeds were agreeable to his words changing first from Protestants to Catholike then from Catholike to Protestant and about againe to Catholike till at last he became neyther Precisian nor Subscriber to the 39. Articles nor confessed Socinian nor any thing vnless that mhich S. Bernard sayth of Abailardus Ep 193. Homo sibi dissimilis est totus ambiguus He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe wholy compounded of doubts I willingly leaue out his middle words Intus Herodes for is Ioannes inwatdly a Herode outwardly a Iohn If the Apostles be to be belieued only in that which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth as he teaches Pag. 144. N. 31. surely this man and his fellow Socinians ought not to be belieued in any thing seing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible and but probable they neither are nor can be constant in any poynt they deliuer and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees Matt 23.2 whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you doe but according to their works doe not but doe neither what they shall say nor according to their works And heere I beseech and euen begg of the Reader if he haue any care to saue his soule that he will consider how far the faith of this man and his Associates is from true Christian Faith of which we haue heard S. Paule saying Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he an Anathema 25. But this is not all that strongly offers it selfe in this poynt For not only his Faith cannot affoard any rest or satisfaction wherby a man may cease from further inquiry but leaues him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion and seeking whether he can fynd some more probable and better grounded This sequele seems cleare Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to saluation charity towards ones self obliges euery man to seeke the safer way and the most certaine Religion And seeing he is not certaine that the Religion or way to Heauen which for the present seemes to him most probable as we haue heard him speake is indeed the right way what remaynes but that men are obliged to be continually busied and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to saluation This my inference seemes to be acknowledged by him For beside what hath beene already cited he sayes of himselfe P. 278. N. 61. If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of diuine matters being prepard in mynd to fellow God and God only which way sceuer he shall lead me if I did not hope that I eyther doe or endeauour to dâ—e these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining saluation Loe heere little hope of saluation vnless a man be still examining to the bottome his opinions and be prepard in mynd to follow c. But in Vaine it is to seeke that rest which will neuer be found except in a Faith and Religion acknowledged to be absolutely certaine and infallible which alone can put an end to all further inquiry Finally Pag. 376. N. 57. he sayth This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely Ponder verily perswaded And were not you verily perswaded in those your changes which you acknowledg Pag. 303. N. 103. from a moderate Protestant to a Papist from a doubting Papist to a confirmed Protestant were you not I say verily perswaded that you did choose wisely Yea you expresly tell vs in the same Pag. 303. that of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist and that the day that you did so you were conuicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion that is Protestantisme was an errour By all which appeares how inconstant you were and must be in matters of Faith and Religion till you acknowledg an infallible Faith taken from an infallible liuing Guide which is Gods true Church 26. From this liberty of Belief what can follow but liberty of life Seing his belief of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion concerning things of an other world wheras worldly pleasures are in present possession and certaine If the absolute certainty wherwith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their Faith to abound hath not bene able to stop the course of mens licentiousness what can we now expect but that they who before did runne will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodyes objects of profit or delight Pag. 326. N. 4. he teaches that if faith be infallible no Christian could committ any deliberate sinne yea and must be perfect in Charity because Faith is the victorie which ouercomes the world and Charity is the effect of Faith If this be so we may say on thecontrary side that if faith be weake or only probable what victory what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it But let
vs now come to some other kind of Argument 27. Hitherto Christians haue belieued that true Christian Faith is a Theologicall vertue that is it hath for its Formall object and Motiue God as he is infinitly Wise and True as Hope respects Him as infinitly Powerfull and Charity as infinitly Good But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theologicall vertue Therfore their faith is no true Christian Faith The Minor cannot be denyed in the grounds of this man For although they will pretend to belieue the Articles of Christiā Religion because God hath reuealed them yet the Argumēts of Credibility or humane testimonyes are the only formall object or Motiue of this Assent God hath reuealed the Mysteryes of Christian Religion They are I say Premises from which the sayed Conclusion or act and assent of Faith is deduced and according to which it is to be measured and not only Preparations or Dispositions to it as Catholike Diuines teach so that the infallible Diuine Reuelation comes to be only a materiall object belieued for another fallible Motiue or Formall Object infinitly beneath the Testimony of God which alone is able to constitute a Theologicall vertue Thus he plainly saith Pag 36. N. 8. God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue that the strength of our faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the Motiues to it and most expresly he saith in the same place Our faith is an assent to this Conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from a Thesis which is metaphysically certaine and from an Hypothesis wherof we can haue but a morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion not proportioned to Diuine Reuelation which is most infallible and strong but measured by the weaker of the Premises grounded vpon humane inducements which cannot giue Species or nature and essence to a Theologicall vertue and so his probable Faith is no more than an humane Opinion For euen as he who concludeth out of Mathematicall Principles knowne only probably hath not knowledg but opinion so he that belieues out of Principles not certaine a Reuelation of its nature certaine hath not certaine knowledg but only opinion And therfor his saying Pag 35. N. 7. that he conveyues Faith to be an assent to Diuine Reuelations vpon the authoty of the Renealer will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Diuine Faith into Opinion since his assent to Diuine Reuelation is grounded and measured and receyues its essence from testimonyes and Principles only probable and humane and not from the Diuine Reuelation without which euen Dr. Potter Pag. 143. expressly sayes Faith is but Opinion or perswasion or at the most an acquired humane belief And it is to be obserued that the Doctour speakes expresly of the Authority of the Church which he sayth can beget only an Opinion and yet Chillingworth resolues our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church and therfor his belief of the Scripture cannot passe the degree of Opinion or humane belief 28. Children are taught in their Catechismes that Faith Hope and Charity are vertues and all Diuines agree that Faith is a vertue infused and seing it resides in the vnderstanding it must be a Vertue of the vnderstanding which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts because vertue out of S. Austine Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio is a quality which by no man is vsed ill And vertue as Diuines teach togeather with Aristotle disposes the Power to that which is best Wherfor the vertue of the will disposeth it vnto Good which is the wils good and an intellectuall vertue must dispose the vnderstanding to that which is True which is the intellectiue Powers greatest Good Since therfor Faith is of its owne essence an intellectuall vertue it must haue an intrinsecall reference and tye vnto true Acts and an incapacity and repugnance vnto false ones and errours 29. Besides Faith is the first Power of supernaturall Being and ought not to be inferiour to Habitus Principiorum in our naturall Being which Habits cannot incline to any false assent And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act requires Gods speciall helpe which cannot moue vnto falshood but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth Or how is it giuen vs as a fitt sufficient and secure meanes wherby to captiuate our vnderstanding with great considence to the obedience of Faith and of God if it be not determined to truth without all danger of errour Will he deny that it exceeds Gods Power to produce such a Habit or to concurre with our vnderstanding to such an Act as shal be incapable of errrour Or what imaginable reason can there be to deny that Faith is such in which concurre Diuine Reuelation a Pious Affection and command of the will and the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost What A supernaturall End of eternall Happyness a supernaturall Habit a supernaturall Grace a supernaturall Act an infinite Authority or formall Object and all to end in meere weake Probabilityes Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flowes and shall not all these diuine and supernaturall fountaynes raise vs higher than Opinion Good Christians can correct naturall Reason in poynts which to Philosophers seemed euident truths and Principles as in the Creation against that Axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made In the Resurrection against From priuation there is not admitted a retourning back to the former Being In the incarnation against A substance is that which exists by it selfe and yet our Sauiours sacred Humanity exists in the Eternall Word in the Mystery of the B. Trinity against Those things which are the same with a third are the same amongst themselues and not to alledge more particulars all miracles wrought by our Sauiour aboue the strength of all naturall causes seemed in humane reason to imply a contradiction or impossibility and whatsoeuer is belieued aboue Reason would seeme false and against it if we did not correct Reason by Faith which could not be done vnless we did judge the light of Faith to be more certaine than the light of Reason or the Principles therof And this Chilling must either grant and so yield faith to be infallible or els must be content to acknowledg a plaine contradiction to himselfe This appeares by these words Pag. 376. N. 56. Propose me any thing out of this booke the Bible and require whether I belieue it or no and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath sayd so therfor it is true And in the Conclusion of his Booke § And wheras he professeth that he will not belieue
any thing contrary to any Verity reuealed in the Word of God though neuer so improhable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason For if his Faith be to his vnderstanding only probable how can he in prudence prefer it before the contrary therof which to his vnderstanding seemes euident and certaine Or how can an assent which I judge to be only probable enable me to belieue that which I judg to be euidently improbable And it is in vayne for him to tell vs of the certainty of Gods Reuelation since we do not compare Naturall Reason with Gods Reuelation but with those Motiues for which we belieue the diuine Reuelation which being to him only probable and esteemed such and no more must yeald to appearance of certainty of the contrary and therfor he must either confess that he contradicts him selfe or yield that Faith is infallible ād more certaine thā naturall reasō 30. To speake truth if we consider well this Socinian Faith can haue no other vse or effect except only to damne men by contenting themselues with a faith of probability when they may and ought to attaine a certainty He himselfe Pag. 36. N. 9. doubts not but that the spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond theyr certainty of euidence And those that belieue and liue according to their faith he giues by degree the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but belieue And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the word of life Now if some men may arriue to so absolute an assurance why may not others why must not all Are not all bound to liue according to their Faith and to obserue the lawes of charity and obedience which doing you say they shall arriue to a full and resolute assurance euen aboue that which you call faith You say Pag. 227. N. 61. Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote the Church farther on condition she does implore it And Pag. 175. N. 75. You grant the spirit of truth shall be giuen and will abide with those that loue God and keepe his Commandements Yea since true Faith is alwayes the Gift of God raysing vs vp by Grace aboue the strength of nature And that euery one is obliged ro haue true Christian Faith it is consequent that de facto all are bound to beleiue with a Faith produced by Grace aboue the forces of nature and consequently infallibly certaine For heere that excellent saying of S. Leo Serm. 16. de Pass Domini hath place Iustè Deus instat praecepto quia praecurrit auxilio He may well exact of vs an infallible Act of Faith seing he giues vs sufficient Grace to performe what he exacts And Pag. 34. N 6. you say The essentiall character of Charity is to judg and hope the best by which you are obliged to judg and hope vnless the contrary be manifest that euery one liues according to his belief by obseruing the Commandements and so in fact is arriued to a certaine and infallible Faith Since therfore you grant that the faith of those who liue according to their Belief is not to be regulated by the Lawes of Logicke and formes of Syllogismes with what shaddow of reason would you make men belieue that the Faith of all Christians necessary to saluation which is a speciall infused Gift of God must be subject to such Rules as if it were a meere Conclusion following only the weaker of the Premises and not measured by the speciall Grace and Motion of the Holy Ghost aboue all Logick Thus all your Objections against the infallible Faith of Christians must be answered by your self as false and sophisticall and consequently all Christians may and ought in despight of such paralogismes to assert and belieue the necessity of an infallible Faith And as I sayd the contrary doctrine can serue only to delude and damne those vnhappy soules who will be harkninge to such noueltyes I say to damne soules euen though it were falsely supposed that his doctrine were true For all Christians beside this man and such as hee sirmely belieuing Christian Faith necessary to saluation to be infallibly true and he acknowledging all poynts of Christian Faith to be but probable and surely he will not be so shamlesse as to say he belieues this particular fancy wherin he disagrees both from Catholiques and Protestants to be more certaine than all other Articles of Faith it cannot be denyed but that men are bound to belieue with an infallible Assent because as I sayd◠in matters absolutely necessary to saluation we are bound by the Law of God and Charity to our selues to embrace the safer way by meanes of an infallible Faith which he confesses may be obtained by prayer and obedience to Gods commandements And so vpon one account or other all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue with an infallible Faith 31. As it is very true that there is no greater nor more foolish sinne than the sinne of Desperation irreuocably bringing damnation which might haue been auoided by Hope for which Gods Grace is neuer wanting if we cooperate so we may say that this fallible Faith infallibly dispatches men to Hell which mischief all may auoide by endeauouring to rayse their faith to certainty as he confesses they may doe by obeying and praying which endeauours the Grace of God puts in their power and will and if they reject it to none more justly then to this infortunate man and his fellowes may be applyd these words of the Prophet Ezechiel C. 18. V. 31.32 Why will yee dy returne and liue Which that they may doe either with more ease or become inexcusable if they doe it not we will more and more confute that Ground on which he doth in a manner wholy relie That the Conclusion following the weaker of the Premises one of which is in our case but probable the Conclusion can be no more than probable 32. For First I would for disputation sake aske of him whether he meane that the Conclusion doth so follow the weaker of the Premises that it receyues no strength or perfection from the fellowship of a better Premise than it selfe is If he answer that it receyues no strength then one will infer that one Premise contayning the Testimony or Reuelation of God an other the testimony of men could produce no stronger conclusion than if both Premises did containe only the testimony of men and so he must confess that de facto he belieues the Articles of Christian Faith no more than if by probable arguments they were proued to be testifyed by men alone If he answer that rhe stronger Premise may eleuate the weaker to produce a Conclusion stronger than
other such qualityes and know in scientificall Demonstrations and belieue in Hope and Charity Is not the same truth knowne with more euidence and consequently with more certainty according to his grounds by a perspicatious vnderstanding than by one more dull Which argues that there are degrees in certainty What is more knowne than that Axiom of Aristotle Propter quod vnumquodque tale illud magis tale That for which euery thing is such is it self much more such Chilling himself Pag. 377. N. 59. Saith we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued otherwise it is no proof If then the conclusion be certaine by vertue of the Proof or Premises these must be more certaine which supposes different degrees of perfection euen in certaine and infallible acts of our vnderstanding and then why not in Faith though it be certaine and infallible And his objection that according to vs all true Faith must be most certaine and the most perfect that is cannot be more than most certaine hath no more strength than it receyues from ignorance For when Faith is sayd to be most certaine the comparison goes not betweene different degrees of graduall perfection in Faith it selfe but betweene Faith and naturall knowledg Or els Faith is sayd to be most certaine for its essence because with euery degree of true Faith we must belieue articles reuealed with an assent super omnia aboue all essentially excluding all doubt or dissent from such articles as Hope relyes Vpon God super omnia aboue all and essentially refuses to admitt any voluntary act of desperation and Charity essentially loues God aboue all things appretiatine choosing to loose all things rather than to offend God and therfor effectually moueing vs not to consent vnto any deadly sinne In these essentiall perfections there is an indivisibility and a most or greatest perfection which being taken away the Vertue is destroyed but it passeth not so in Graduall perfections of Faith Hope Charity and other Vertues either infused or acquired 45. What knowledg is so certaine euident and perfect as the Beatificall Vision which may truly be called most perfect but how In respect of other knowledg terminated only to created Objects but in respect to it selfe in order to Graduall perfection it consists not in an indiuisible poynt because one Angell or Saint beholds God intuitiuè with more perfection than another Thus euen your probable Faith must essentially exclude all Doubt Taken in the most proper sense that is not as it signifyes formidinem oppositi some feare least the contrary be true but as it is taken for a suspension of our assent to either side which cannot possibly consist with a probable possitiue assent to one part and in this essentiall notion of excluding all such Doubt all probable judgments must agree and yet you will not deny but there are different Graduall degrees in probable assents and in particular in your probable Faith which you proue to be but probable that so you may as you pretend agree with Scripture mentioning different degrees of Faith 46. Not in this instance only but in others also I conuince you by your owne assertions Pag. 36. N. 9. you say The spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayers and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyend their certainty of euidence And To those that belieue and liue accordingly to their faith he giues by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but belieue And be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which saw it with their eyes which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the Word of life Heere you speake of certaine persons arriuing by degrees to an absolute certainty and I hope you will not deny but that there might be disserent degrees of perfection among them according to the degrees of their deuout and humble prayers and sincere obedience and that the same man might by degrees be aduanced aboue himself as also that they might pray for such increase Therfore there are degres in certainty for attaining of which one may praye as in your objection you alledg the Apostles prâ—ing to Christ to increase their Faith which is directly for vs against your selfe For Pag. 329. N. 7. you teach that the Apostles for some points had absolute certainty in their faith or an assent which was not pure and proper and meere faith but somwhat more an assent containing faith but superadding to it Therfore certainty may be increased and this increase may be prayed for as the Apostles did and among the Apostles who doubts but that one might belieue with more certainty than an other Surely you will be content that S. Paule enter into the number of those who liuing as they belieue attaine an absolute certainty and yet he made progress in charity as himselfe witnesseth 1. Tim 4. V. 6.7.8 I am euen now to be sacrificed and the tyme of my resolution is at and. I haue fought a good fight I haue consummate my course I haue kept the Faith Concerning the rest there is layd vp for me a crowne of justice which our Lord will render to me in that day a just judge You see this blessed Apostle not long before his death speakes of a crowne due for his Faith and good workes or Charity without exception of any tyme wherin his Faith was fallible which indeed was alwayes most certaine and infallible by the particular appearing of our Sauiour to him and most express reuelation which certainty had bene no favour but a great harme if it had depriued him of all increase in charity notwithstanding his continuall exercise of heroicall good workes and a death glorious by martyrdome the highest pitch of Charity and perfection and yet he sayd Phil. 3.12 Non quod jam perfectus sim not that I now am perfect And the like might I say of all the Apostles and other Saints who liued as they belieued and were eminent in Prayer Obedience and all sanctity 47. But this is not all that may be alledged against you out of your owne doctrine Pag. 330. N. 8. You say that we are to belieue the Religion of Christ we are and may be infallibly certaine and this you endeauour to proue by some arguments which you stile certaine and then conclude from all these premises this conclusion euidently followes that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian ReligoÌ„ Now it cannot be denyed but that in this assent It is infallibly certaine that we are firmily to belieue the truth of Christian Religion there may be degrees of certainty or perfection both in different persons at the same tyme and in the same person at different tymes as he may more and more ponder the Reasons which
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
assertaine me that the direction of Faith is not of this nature and so faith may teach and lead and man be refractory and not follow and faith remaine without perfect Charity 69. Seuenthly you say Pag 329. N. 7. that the Apostles belieued with certainty and P. 37. N. 9. you grant that they who liue as they belieue will be advanced to as great a certainty as those which heard the Gospell from Christ himselfe which saw with their eyes c and yet I suppose you will not deny but that the Apostles and those other might encrease in Charity and that Faith in their vnderstaning did not impeach the freedom of their will without which there can be no obedience which as your selfe teach Pag. 329. N. 7. can hardly haue place where there is not possibility of disboedience as there is not when the vnstandin does all and the will nothing Therfor certainty of belief stands well with freedom to exercise Acts of Charity with great or little perfection or to committ deliberate sinnes 70. But let vs suppose that Certainty in Faith brings with it a necessity of Charity what will follow but that such necessitated acts shall not be capable of prayse or reprehension which can only belong to free Actions and then how can Charity heere be perfect if vpon just account and due consideration it be not so much as laudable Or how can any be commended for not committing a deliberate sinne which he cannot committ I sind in holy Scripture prayse giuen and eternall glory assured to him who could transgress and did not transgress doe euill and did it not Eccli 31. V. 9.10 but who will commend one qui non potuit transgredi non est transgressus non potuit facere mala non fecit Who could not transgress and did not transgress could not committ evill and did not committ it From whence followes that your Assertion if faith were infallible Charity must needs be perfect is so farr from being true that it should not be so much as laudable that is the Habit of Charity could not produce any Actions capable of prayse or if such Actions be free then it is in the power of the will to exercise perfect or remisse ones or to reject Gods Grace and abstayne from all such Acts and so Charity shall not necessarily be perfect Thus your Principles and sequels plainly destroy themselues 71. Eightly you teach That if faith were infallible it should be impossible for any true beâ—â—euer to committ any dâ—â—ikerate sinne and that in such a man Charity must be perfect and as we make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity and so none could possibly make any progress in it but all true belieuer's should be equally in Charity In which words I find such a connection as in true language should be called a manifold contradiction First in saying that such a man could not committ any deliberate sinne you seeme to suppose that he may committ indeliberate sinnes which being sinnes must be voluntary and free though not always so perfectly voluntary as those which are commited with full deliberation or reflection and worthly of blame and punishment and he who committs them in that respect loues God with lesse perfection than an other who is more vigilant and committs such sinnes more seldome and so all true belieuers should not be equall in Charity 2. If infallible faith take away freewill it depriues men of power or possibility to committ any sinne at all though neuer so indeliberate Or if it leaue them with freewill they may committ deliberate sinnes Therfor the difference in this place of deliberate and indeliberate sinnes is destructiue of it selfe 3. Wheras you say that as we make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity I answer you should haue sayd the direct contrary namely that seing you are not ignorant of our Doctrine that there be degrees in Charity it must follow that we also belieue that there are degrees in faith the Habit wherof is encreased by euery Act of of Charity as you also Pag 37. N. 9. teach that faith is encreased by devout and humble prayer and sincere obedience But this poynt puts me vpon a demonstratiue Argument against you in this manner You teach that if one liue as he belieues the spirit of God will advance him to a certainty in faith Now let vs propose two persons thâ—one indued with infallible Faith who according to your Objection must therfore be so perfect in Charity that he can make no progress therin nor committ any deliberate sinne thâ—other with your probable fallible faith who yet by humble and deuout prayers and sincere obedience makes continuall progress in Faith and Charity and therfor will at length arriue to a degree of Faith and Charity equall to him whom we at first supposed to be indued with infallible Faith and perfect Charity which being not insinite the other by dayly improuement of faith and Charity may and must at length arriue to the same degree of perfection And then all your Objections against vs for our infallible Faith do instantly fall heauy vpon your selfe who will be demanded whether such a man can committ any deliberate sinne or make any progress in Charity If he cannot do either of these why do you inferâ— as absured in vs the very same sequele which your self must grant If he can do both these things that is committ deliberate sinnes and make progress in Charity why do you say that he cannot doe so I do not see how you can auoyd this Dilemma and contradiction with your selfe 72. Ninthly you say Whosoeuer fynds in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoeuer discouers in his Charity any imperfection must not belieue that he hath any true faith But these or like sequeles follow from your owne not from any doctrine of ours For seing on the one side you teach that by Prayer progress in Charity and obedience men will arriue to the spirit of obsignation and perfect faith and on the other that faith is the cause and measure of Charity it followes that whosoeuer fynds in himselfe such a perfect faith which he must haue because he is obliged to liue as he belieues must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoeuer discouers in his Charity any imperfection must not belieue that he hath such a faith as he should haue Euery one therfor is obliged to haue a perfect faith both because he is obliged to liue as he belieues and to make progresse in Charity which will be the cause of a perfect faith as also because Faith according to you is the cause of Charity and so because we are bound to keepe the commandements and to haue Charity which is the effect we must haue faith which is the cause and so vpon a double account we are obliged to a perfect faith both as Charity
or liuing as we ought is the cause of faith and as faith is the cause of Charity to which all being obliged they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof which you say is faith Wherfor vpon the whole matter your probable faith remaines only to such as keepe not the Commandements nor liue as they belieue which if they did God would rayse them higher to a certainty For thus you say Pag 37. N. 9. God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be truing and effectuall to true obedience and rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty Therfor a primo ad vltimum the weakest Faith if it be effectuall to obedience will bring men to certainty Therfore none de facto want such a certainty except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience And further seing you confess yours not to be certaine it must follow that it is not effectuall to true obedience otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty 73. But this is not all that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt Remember your doctrine Pag 379. N. 70. and elswhere that repentance necessary to saluation requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all viâ—es and the effectuall practise of all Christian vâ—rtues which whosoever performes exercises very perfect obedience and shall not fayle of being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners For if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience and so fall not into great sinne or truly repent by your kind of repentance he must passe to a certainty of Faith and so all in state of saluation both Saints that is who haue not sinned mortally and repentant sinners cannot want the spirit of Obsignation as you call it and certaine Faith Why then do you deceiue the world and delude poore soules with a fallible faith or perswasion and not absolutely proclaime to the world that infallible Faith is necessary since euen according to your grounds it is necessary for all sorts of people 74. Now all your Objections and my Answers being vnpartially considered let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them of demonstratiue conuincing inuincible cleare and the like and what reason you had to say P. 326. N. 4. These you see are strang and portentuous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fame haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and Piety sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity And therfor I must intreat and adjure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it 75. I answer S. Paule had good reason to say Scientia inflat 1. Cor 8.1 Knowledg puffeth vp it is a poysonous quality making the person swell his Arguments and all that he does or sayes swell and emptyness appeare greatness it is a multiplying glasse that stirrs vp in mens fancyes strang and huge apparitions from nothing But Sir remeber that your ObjectioÌ„s make no more against Vs Catholikes than PictestaÌ„ts who profess ChristiaÌ„ Religion to be infallible and I belieue will not belieue your bare word that these consequences are cleare Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting though resisted that is by a no-doubt as I haue shewed it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne it must bring with it Charity so perfect that we can make no progress therin For my part I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good as I haue shewed more than sufficiently though yet I must add that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine be strange and portentuous in themselues yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such For besides that the very same consequences which you deduce from our doctrine follow from your owne assertions as I haue proued answer I beseech you these few Demands 1. Whether it be more convenient that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity or that it should be compatible with a voluntary sinfull damnable not only Doubt but positiue assertive Errour as you teach Pag. 368. N. 49. and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy as I observed aboue or that it may stand with an assent that probably it may be false or with a preparation of mynd to forsake it if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it thaÌ„ you conceive your selfe to haue for it which for ought you know may happen as I shewed above 2. Whether it be worse that all should of necessity be perfect in charity by an Infallible Faith or that none can be perfect as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather That Faith is only probable and fallible and yet that the measure of our victory over the world and of our charity must be taken from Faith which you say is the cause of charity and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause Besides your brethren the Calvinists believe that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith and then seing according to your owne words if the cause be perfect the effect must be perfect and that the cause of charity is in their opinion perfect that is a sirme and certaine Faith it followes that their charity must of necessity be perfect and that no just man can make any progress therin 3. Whether it be more absurd to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes Or whether it be worse to teach that one cannot breake the commandements which you against all truth impute to vs Or that he cannot keepe them euen with the assistance of Gods grace which is the common doctrine of Protestants Thus then it is not our doctrine but the errours of you and your brethren that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity And what a Paradoxe is this A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity as yon are pleased strangly to speake directly against the admonition of S. Peter 1. Pet 5. cui resistite fortes in Fide whom
kept without Gods particular efficacious Grace which will not constantly be given to him who wants true Christian Faith Nay if justifying Grace be necessary for keeping the Commandements for long tyme as I proved there much more true Faith must be required to doe it Morover besides our obligation to keepe the morall law or of Nature there are precepts binding vs to the exercise of supernaturall Acts of infused vertues for example Hope and Charity and how shall our will exercise supernaturall Acts without a proportionable supernaturall direction in our vnderstanding And if the direction be supernaturall it cannot be erroneous but infallibly true and essentially different from your fallible assent as I have bene forced often to repeate But why do I endeavour to prove this poynt I cannot doubt but if you did believe that Christian Faith necessary to salvation must be in it selfe infallible by the particular precept of faith you would not say a Faith only probable could be sufficient to worke by Love and keepe the other Commandements For if it be supposed not be a true Faith how can it worke by Love or live it selfe being more than dead that is an Assent which never lived the life or nature or essence of divine Faith Surely if a Faith believed to be infallible doth not restrayne the wills and Passions of men what liberty would they take if their thoughts could tell them that Christian Religion may prove not true as in your doctrine it may 99. Object 7. Pag. 37. N. 9. Some experience makes me feare that the Faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be crackt with too much strayning and that being possessed with this false principle that it is in vaine to belteue the Gospell of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yeld to other matters of Tradition And fynding that their Faith of it is to them vndiscernable from the belief they giue to the truth of other storyes are in danger either not to belieue at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose or else though indeed they do belieue it yet to think they do not and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityes as fearing they haue not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtaine etern all happyness 100 Answer Blessed be our Lord who hath given vs his Holy Grace not to follow our owne fancyes nor be tossed with every wind of Doctrine but to rely on the Rocke of the Catholike Church where I never knew any such men as you talke of nor do thinke any such can be found amongst Christians no nor amongst any who profess any Religion which all men conceyve to signify a true and certaine way of worshiping God And who would make choyse of a Religion which he did not certainly belieue to be true vnless he be first tempted and tainted with Socinianisme wherby being by his meere probable belief placed betweeÌ„ the certainty of Catholike Faith and the No-religion of Atheists is in evident danger or rather in a voluntary necessity to fall into Atheisme vnless he rayse himselfe to our Catholique Certainty as he may doe by the assistance of Gods Holy Grace which is neuer wanting to vs if we be not wanting to it Do not yourself teach that if one liue as he believes and every one ought to liue as he belieues he shall be raysed by the spirit of God to a certainty If then every one may and ought to make his beliefe sure by a certainty what place remaynes for agonyes and perplexityes Contrarily by resting in a probable Faith he hath manifest and necessary cause of perplexity and most just feare least he want that which Catholiks Protestants and all who profess any Religion hold most certainly necessary to salvation and that it is a grievous sin even to deny such a necessity especially the contrary pernicious errour being maintained by a few who dare not openly declare of what Sect they are Men in the question concerning Eternity of Happiness or Misery are obliged to seek and embrace the safer way of which by meere probability they cannot be assured but must be still seeking further and further and never finding Certainty in their naked probabilityes are deservedly by their owne fault cast into most reasonable agonyes and perplexityes Not then our belief of the certainty of Christian Faith but your contrary Heresy puts men in danger not to belieue at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose For since as it were by the instinct of nature men conceiue Religion to be a certainly true and right worship of God you who would perswade them that no such certainty is possible cast them with good reason vpon a necessity of believing nothing at all wherin as every body will detest your impiety so I cannot but wonder at your inconsequence to yourself in the other part of these your words or else though indeed they do belieue it yet to thinke they do not and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityds seing Pag. 357. N. 38. you resolutely say to Charity Maintayned of your selfe I certainly know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I do belieue the Gospell of Christ as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this Motiue because I conceyue it sufficiently abundantly superabundantâ—y proved to be Divâ—ne Revelation And after a few lines you say in generall If no man can err coâ—cerning what he believes then you muâ—â— give me leaue to assure myself that I do belieue Do not all these words aÌ„d more to be read in the same place declare that in your opinyon whosoeuer belieues with certainty is certaine that he belieues with certainty yea and which is more he is certaine vpon what Motiue he belieues How then do you say They are in danger though indeed they belieue yet to thinke they do not and to cast themselues into wretched c By the way it is to be observed that heer you profess to belieue the Divine Revelation not for it self as the Formall Object of Faith should be belieued but for precedent Inducements which therfor are the Formall Object of our Faith and so it is no Theologicall vertue nor a Divine Assent as I said hertofore 101. But above all who can indure your saying that considering and discoursing men fynd their faith of the Gospell of Christ to be to them vndiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other storyes and yet you suppose and labour to prove that such a faith is sufficient to salvation I appeale to the conscience of every Christian whether he fynds not in his soule an assent to what he reads in Holy Scripture farr different and of another kind and higher nature and greater strength than the credit he gives to other storyes If your considering and discoursing men have
necessity of an infallible certaine Faith as I haue shewed as also that your Objection and endeavour to proue that a fallible Faith is sufficient for the exercise of good workes is nothing to the purpose since Char Maintayned spoke of sufficiency to obserue the precepts of Faith and if you belieue S. Iohn Chrysostome cited aboue that according to S. Paule it is a harder matter to belieue the high mysteries of our Faith than to exercise good workes you will easily inferr that although you could proue a probable Faith to be sufficient in order to Obedience or exercise of good workes yet it would not therfor remaine proved to be sufficient for believing as we ought And S. Chrysostome saying that it is so hard a thing to belieue supposes Christian Faith to be more than probable 108. Fourthly I say That although the words of Char Maintayned be taken in the sense which you would put vpon them yet your Arguments are of no force to confute them or to prove that a fallible Faith is able to overcome our will ād encounter with humane probabilityes backed with the strength of flesh and bloud And First I must intreat you not to cosen your Reader as a Minister foold his Auditours who after he had spoken much of Gods Commandements in the close of his discourse desired not to be mistaken as if he belieued that those Commandements of which he had spoken could be kept for it was very certaine they could not which if he had told them in the beginning he might haue spared his owne paynes and the exercise of their patience in hearing his prating and praysing an impossible thing Our Saviour sayd if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commādemēts Matth 19.17 These men tell vs if thou wilt enter into life belieue firmily as a matter of Faith that thou canst not keepe the commandements But to our purpose least Mr Chilling loose his labour and deceaue his Hearers I must beseech him to deale plainly and before he goes about to moue their wills he would in forme their vnderstandings by letting them know that he is to speake of infinite and eternall happyness provided for all those that obey Christ Iesus and of vnspeakeable eternall torments to be inflicted on all such as break his commandemēts but withall he must assure them that although both Papists and Protestants teach that all must belieue with absolute certainty there is a Heauen a Hell Eternall rewards and punishments a Sauiour a Resurection working of miracles and the like yet that with men considering discoursing and vsing rationall deductions according to the never failing rules of Logick which are his words in severall parts of his Booke such as He and his fellowes are the matter passeth farr otherwise For they belieue that the teaching a necessity of such a certaine Faith is a Doctrine most presumptuous and vncharitable Pag. 328. N. 6. and a greate errour and of dangerous and pernicious consequence Pag. 325. N. 3 And that indeed the Articles which all Christians belieue may for ought they know Certainly to the contrary in the end proue false and no better than dreames Thus I must intreate him to prepare his Auditours and then let vs heare how he will goe about to perswade yea oblige them vnder payne of eternall damnation to the observance of things most difficult and repugnant to humane principles naturall inclinations flesh and bloud self-loue and in a word which are To the Gentils foolishness to the Iewes a scandall 1. Cor 1.23 and besides are not present and within sight as things of this life are but remote and of an other world Let vs thē heare him preaching rather than prouing in the words which I cited in the Objection who sees not that many millions c 109. To which your loose kind of disputing diverse would giue different answers Perhaps some hearing from others your so many changes of Religion and from your self that your present belief is but probable they would take tyme for tryall how long you would persever in your sect of a late Date for tyme and strange for the nouelty as being contrary both to Protestans with whom you liued so long tyme and against Catholiques to whom you joynd your selfe not by any force for who or what except evidence of truth could force you to a Religion lying vnder the burthen of a long and cruell persecution but vpon due consideration of Reasons on all sides and not taking things at a second hand or vpon credit but by examination made immediatly by your selfe or by conference with others who gaue you all freedom and encouragement to propose your difficultyes And for this their delay in resolvinge they might perhaps make vse of a saying of your owne Pag 330. N. 7. He who requires that I should see things farther than they are visible requires I should see something invisible and apply it to this sense That you who flitted from a Faith which you believed then to be certaine to a belief confessedly not certaine and perswade others to do the same may in tyme passe from a non-certainty to a non-entity or non-existence of all Faith and so by degrees bring your proselytes to plaine infidelity 110. Others will answer That indeed if men were once infaliibly certaine of the great promises and threats you mention of Heaven Hell Resurrection from death c. They could excogitate no satisfying reason to avoide Obedience and keeping the commandements Yet while we suppose them to be deliberating about the election of their Faith and actually enjoying or in a way or possibility and freedom to enjoy things of profit and pleasure in this world which are present and certaine and proportionable to their naturall inclinations and powers of Body ād soule ād thē heare you telling thē that no Religion is certaine and talking of things to come a farr of and in another world which to humane reason not assisted by certainty of Faith looke like the spatia imaginaria before the world was created you ought not to wonder if notwithstanding all the fayre words in your Objection men would be apt to pleade the possession of their Freedom and liberty which they will not easily bring vnder so strict obligation and seeming heauy yoke meerly vpon a belief concerning which your selfe profess to have only this certainty that it is not certaine Christians firmely belieue by Faith know evidently by reason see dayly by experience that dye they must they heare all men say and themselves belieue Death to be Omnium terribilium terribilissimum the most dreadfull of all dreadfull things and yet we see they more apprehend the danger of wetting their cloathes by a gentle shower threatned instantly to fall than death it selfe And why because the one is apprehended as almost present the other is looked on as farr of for space of tyme as the vast body of the sun seemes to be a small thing by the great distance of place Besides divine
the Apostles doubtiess delivered by Tradition Covell in his Answer to Iohn Burges Pag 139. affirmes the moderate vse of the Crosse to be an Apostolicall Constitution and in his Examination against the Plea of the innocent Cap. 9 Pag. 104. referreth the termes of Archishops vnto Apostolicall Ordination And VVhitgift in his Defence c affirmeth and proveth the Apostles Tradition of Easter And Oecolampadiuâ— affirms the Baptisme of infants not to be taught in scripture in liâ— Epiâ—tolarum Zuâ—nglâ—i Occolampaâ—â— Pag 101. and 363. and so likewise doth Zuinglius To 1. Lib de Bapt. Fol. 96. These men therefore must either confess the authority of Gods church and her infallible Traditions or yield to the pernicious Doctrine of Anabaptists Dr. Taylor in is Defence of Episcopacy is so full to our purpose for the necessity of Traditions that I thought sit to transcribe his words as they ly § 19. which are these Pag 100. Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance and delivered to vs by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we haue no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitiue Disciples meeting in their Synaxes vpon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to haue changed it into a Thursday meeting to haue showne their Christian liberty we should thinke strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festivall lesse then an Aposticall ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed and yet the Church hath founded this rite vpon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily obserue that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants vpon vs as we doe of baptizing infants vpon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practise Apostolicall recorded in scripture and therfore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to fly to Apostolicall traditiue ordination and therfor the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in scripture then the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ sayd Hoc facite Doe this then why may not every Christian man there represented doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then doe all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christes saying is there in all the foure Gospells limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests vpon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H Church and yet cannot be denyed that so it ought to be by any man that would not haue his Christendome suspected To these I adde the Communion of Women the distinction of bookes Apocryphall from Canonicall that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of scripture it selfe the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all men that cry vp the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and diverse others of greater consequence which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood rely but vpon equall faith with this of Episcopacy though I should waue all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therfore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained vpon the confidence of that which we call the Faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it selfe Thus farr the Doctour in whom beside other divers points for our purpose it is remarkable that he affirmes the deniall of the baptizing of infants to be an Heresy and yet that the contrary truth is not contained in scripture which therfore cannot be sayd to containe all necessary points of Faith 43. Seaventhly it is a prodigious kind of thing that Protestants would make men belieue that all necessary poynts are evident in scripture and yet for vnderstanding scripture prescribe certaine necessary Rules or Meanes which it is evident few can possibly obserue and no lesse evident by the confession of our adversaryes that being observed they are not sufficient and consequently even by those Meanes assigned for vnderstanding scripture we know that scripture is not evident in all necessary things which is a poynt well to be noted Sanchius de sacra scriptura Col 409. saith The Holy scripture in those things which are necessary to be knowne for salvation is so cleare that it may easily he vnderstood of all those who are indued with Gods spirit and who reade it attentively and dayly and vnderstand the words and phrases therof Easily Doth not this contradict all the former words which require knowledg hard to be gotten and paynes not easy to be taken The scripture sayth this Protestant is cleare in all necessary poynts to all that are indued with the spirit of God But if they be indued with the spirit of God they are presupposed to haue true Faith for points necessary to be knowen and then I aske fromwhence had they that Faith without which scripture is not cleare Not from scripture because it is prerequired to the vnderstanding of scripture Therfore from some other meanes which certainly can be no other but the Church and tradition Besides this that is beside the spirit of God yea aÌ„d true Faith they must reade scripture daily and attentively and must penetrate the words and phrases which is so farr from being easy to be done that he assignes no fewer thaÌ„ nineteene Rules for doeing it wherof one is that we interpret scripture juxta analogiam Fidei and by the Scriptures themselves by diligent conferring of places like to one an other Is this easy And yet we must not forget that he speaks of poynts necessary to de believed Scharphius assignes twenty Rules in cursu Theologico de scrip controvers 8. Pag 44. which vnless they be kept we cannot but erre But perhaps all these Rules are easy Iudg of the rest by these To know originall languages also to discusse the words phrases and Hebraismes to conferr the places which are like and vnlike to one another to aske advise
which rather declare the difficulty and obscurity than the facility and evidence of Scripture For what great paynes and industry can be required to fynd out that which is evident And therfor S. Chrysostome sayth that our Saviour remitted the Jewes not to a simple and bare reading of the scripture but to a very diligent search therof For he did not say Reade the scriptures but search And Euthymius sayth He bids them digg more deeply into them that they may fynd out those thinges which are deeply layd vp therin like a treasure How then is it evident that Scrutamini signifyes evidently that all things necessary are cleare in scripture alone And yet we must remember that our B. Saviour spoke those words in order to the greatest and most essentiall Article of Chritian Faith to witt that Jesus Christ is the true Messias about which Poynt the Eunuch Act 8.34 had need that Philip should interpret Esay vnto him I beseech thee of whom doth the Prophet speak this Of himself or of some other To which purpose S. Hierome to S. Paulinus sayth of this Eunuch So great a lover of the Law and of divine knowledg was he that even in the chariot he read holy scriptures And yet when he had the book in his hands and conceyved our Lords words in his thoughts repeated them with his tongue sounded them with his lipps he was ignorant of him whom he worshipped vnknowen though yet it were hee of whom the booke did speake And Luk 24.27 the disciples stood in need that Christ should interpret vnto them in all scriptures which were concerning him What greater Mystery than this concerning Christ himself and how was it evident in Scripture when even the Disciples who were brought vp in the Schoole of Christ vnder such a Maister whose Divine words they heard and saw his admirable works and Miracles did not vnderstand it How many wayes is this Objection against Protestants and nothing at all against vs 63. Neither will they gaine any more by those words Joan. 20.31 which Chilling also objects Pag. 211. N. 42. These are written that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Son of God and that beleeving you may haue life in his name For First what makes this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to rely on scripture alone for all matters of Faith In these words there is no command even to reade S. Iohns Gospell but they only declare the end and occasion which moved him to write it namely to confute the Ebionite Heritiks and proue that Iesus is the son of God which makes good what I sayd hertofore that the Evangelists did not purposely intend to deliver all things necessary to salvation or make a Catechisme but wrote according to severall different occasions as now we see that if the Ebionites had not taught that wicked Heresy S. Iohn had not written his Gospell And therfor 2. This Text speaks of one Point only not of all Articles of Faith 3. S. Iohn speaks only of his owne Gospell and Chilling holds it only for probable that every one of the Gospells contaynes all necessary Points and therfor no certainty can be taken from these words that Scripture contaynes all things necessary 4. Even for this one Poynt of Faith S. Iohn sayes not that his Gospell is evident excluding the Authority of Gods Church and her Pastours yea he carefully relates our Saviours words to S. Peter Ioan. 21.17 Feed my sheep and we see for want of submitting to such Authority Chilling and other Socinians deny that for which s. Iohn wrote his Gospell that Iesus is the true sonne of God 5. In the Text These things are written that you may belieue c. s. Iohn speaks not of the doctrine taught but of the Miracles wrought by our Saviour Christ and therfor we must if this Objection were of any force say that all things necessary to salvation are evidently contayned in that part or those words and lines of his Gospell which precisely recount our Savionrs Miracles which to imagine is ridiculous and absurd Now that s. Iohn speaks of our Saviours Miracles is confessed by Whitaker as a thing evident de scripttur Q. 5. P. 619. saying It is evident that the Evangelist speakes of the signes and Miracles of Christ not of his Doctrine The Protestant Bible sayth Many other signes truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this booke But these are written that ye might belieue that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God Where we see these are written is referred to the substantiue which went before that is signes and it appeares also by reflecting on the Antithesis which he makes betweē not written and wtitten Many are not written which he sayes of signes many other signes truly did Iesus which are not writtē and then adds but these are writtē Therfor writtē and not written fall vpon the same thing But not written did relate to signes or miracles Therfor written must be refered to the same Chilling himself Pag 211. N. 42. saith By These are written may be vnderstood either these things are written or these signes are written And then what consequence is this S. Iohn wrote some Miracles of our Saviour Christ that men might belieue him to be the son of God Therfor all necessary Points of Faith are evident in scripture or in S. Iohns Gospell taken alone And he doth but play the Sophister to deceyue some simple Reader when out of S. Iohns words in the same Pag. 211. N. 42. he infers that All that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them believe that which being beleeved with liuely Faith would certainly bring them to Eternall Life For a lively Faith or a Faith working by Charity must include not only that one Article Iesus is the son of God but all other Mysteryes of Faith togeather with the keeping of all Commandements belonging to Charity and other Vertues and it may be sayd of any least Poynt of Faith that it being believed with a lively Faith will certainly bring the believer to Eternall life because a lively Faith involves all other necessary Poynts of Faith and Manners And his silent leaping from Faith alone yea from one only Article of Faith alone to a lively Faith demonstrates that the believing of that Poynt alone Iesus is the son of God is not sufficient for salvation vnless it be joyned with the belief of other Points belonging both to Faith and Manners and with observation of the Commandements which he will never proue to be evidently contayned in the scripture alone and much less in the Gospell of S. Iohn alone wherof more shall be sayd herafter In the meane tyme take for your Instruction these wholesome words of S Austine de vnit Eccl Cap 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ is the son of God yet so dissent from his Body which is the Church as their Communion is not with
to our owne conjectures may be alledged contrary wayes as for example you say that the doctrine of indulgences is dangerous because it may take away the feare of Purgatory And why may not I say that the denying of Indulgences besides the Heresy which is of it selfe damnable is dangerous for the sequeles because the want of that devotion and omission of very many works of many vertues as repentance pennance Charity c to which a desire and endeavour to gaine Indulgences would moue vs would very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved as you say of hearing the publike Offices celebrated in a toung not vnderstood by all Concerning which instances I say That if the doctrine of Protestants in this matter be false as most certainly it is then not very probably as you threaten vs but certainly they shall be damned who in this particular oppose their judgment and Practise against the Belief and Practise of the Catholique Church spread over the world before Luther appeared Nay I say morè that though we did suppose which we can never grant the Church to erre is this Poynt yet godly Laymen as you speake who in simplicity of hart and out of Ignorance obey the Church by this their Obedience oblige as I may say Allmighty God never to permit that their goodness and godliness proue to them an occasion of perdition Rather according to your manner of arguing and according to truth the defect of Obedience Religion and of other vertues which they exercise in hearing those Offices would hinder the salvatien of many which otherwise might haue bene saved Besides if the want of devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderslood might happily beget may very probably binder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved why shall not Protestants be obliged in all their Churches to more frequent Service daily and howerly and be still receyving their Sacrament least for want of devotion which that frequency might happily beget the salvation of many be hindered which otherwise would haue bene saved In the Vniversityes they haue for most dayes in the weeke their publike Service in Latine which divers Lay men who may be present cannot vnderstand and so be deprived of that devotion the want wherof may hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved But seing many Catholique Writers haue handled this Poynt of publike Prayers in Latine both copiously and learnedly it is enough for me to haue answered and retorted your Objections vpon yourself and your Brethren and it is a great foolery to depriue men as you doe of their liberty by imaginary conditionall effects which without end may be turned on all sides 87. Your last Example deserves no other Answer than that it is grounded on a wicked supposition that to belieue the Vicar of Christ to be infallible in his Definitions could be a congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist or that Antichrist could get into that See as you impiously speake There is no malice comparable to the malice and blindness of Heresy But it is tyme for mee to returne from this necessary digression and to go forward in confuting the doctrine of the sole-sufficiency of Scripture And therfor 88. 15. From Protestants themselves I argue in this manner Most Protestants hold that we know Scripture to be the word of God by the private spirit or some quality inherent or internall to Scripture it self and think it so evident that to aske how we can know Scripture to be the word of God Calvin Lib. 1. Inst Cap. 7. sayth is all one as to aske whence we may learne how to discerne light from darkness white from blacke sweet from soure And the Scottish Minister Baron in Apodixi Tract 9 Q 4. Pag. 630. and Q. 6. Pag 663 Sect 2. saith The Scripture doth sufficiently manifest its devineness by its owne internall light majesty and efficacy Amesius de Circulo Pontificio saith We belieue that the Scriptures do shine by their owne light Whitaker De Scriptura Q. 3. Cap 3. ad 3. They who haue the Holy Ghost can know Gods voyce even as a frend is wont to know by the voyce his friend with whom he hath conversed most familiarly a long tyme. Potter sayth Pag 141. That Scripture is of divine authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall arguments found in the letter it self Which words while Chill interprets to signify only that men are strengthned in their belief by that beame of light which shines in Scripture he leaves no meanes for his client Potter to belieue with certainty the Scripture For he saith expressly in the same place that the Church only presents disposes and prepares which supposed there is saieth he in the Scripture it self light sufficient which though blind and sensuall men see not yet the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motives which the church vseth for enforcing of her instructions one may discover to be divine descended from the Father and fountaine of light But how come you M. Chilling worth to know Scripture to be the word of God We take it from your owne words Pag 69. N. 46. where you say to your adversary The conclusiō of your tenth § is that the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone but by some extrinsecall authority which you need not prove for no wise man denyes it But then this authority is that of vniversall traditiō not of your church Behold the agreemēt of protestāts in this maine poynt on which their whole religion depēds According to Potter Chill is a blind ād sesuall mā who sees not that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture And Potter Calvin Baron ād other Protestants deny that which in Chilling worths judgment no wise man denyes Out of which premises of protestants it is easy to conclude That seing so many of them imagine a cleare light to shine in Scripture which others affirme no wise man can imagine which is very true for if there be such a light evidently shining in Scripture how is it possible that they can disagree about the Canon of Scripture or how could some books haue once been questioned which now are receyved for canonicall We must affirme that much more a particular text may to one seeme evidētly to signify that which to an other doth no way appeare but perhaps directly the contrary And therfor although we haue heard Calvin saying that it is as easy to discerne which be true scriptures as to distinguish betweē white ād blacke yet it appeares by what he writes L 4 Inst C. 9. N. 13. that for the interpreting of scripture more labour ād industry is required as is also cleare by the many ād hard rules which protestants require for interpretation therof as we haue seene aboue and therfor it is cleare evē frō the doctrines of
any Text of Scripture which to you is the only rule of Faith 102. Perhaps some will vnderstand All to signify all things profitable But this sense cannot be admitted since no man can deny but that the knowledg of those things which S. John witnesseth not to haue bene written had bene profitable to vs now as then the performance or delivering them was to the beholders or hearers It were blasphemy to say that S. Paul exercised an idle action or recited vnprofitable words when Act. 20.35 he sayd you must remember the word of our Lord Jesus because he sayd it is more a blessed thing to giue rather then to take which words of our blessed Saviour are not to be found in S. Luke or the whole bible but S. Paule receyved them only by tradition Those things also which are omitted by S. Luke but recorded in the other Gospells no Christian will deny to be profitable Therfor by All we must not vnderstand All things profitable 103. Will you vnderstand by All all things necessary to be written by any First in this sense this text makes nothing for your purpose vnless first you begg the Question and suppose that all things necessary to be believed must also necessarily be written which is the very point in Question between vs. For if all things necessary to be believed are not particularly written in the bible then more is necessary to be believed than is necessary to by written and consequently though S. Luke had set downe all that is necessary to be written yet this would not proue that his Gospell contaynes all things necessary to be believed Secondly your selfe cannot allow of this sense without contradicting yourself who hold that every Gospell containes all things necessary to be believed and therfore S. Luke could not judg it necessary that he should write all such things which had bene but to repeare and write the things already written more than once Thirdly The common doctrine of Protestants is that the sole-sufficiency of scripture consists in the whole Canon or bible and therfor S. Luke according to this supposition could not think himself obliged to write every poynt necessary to be believed since he was not ignorant that before he wrote his Gospell the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Marke and some Apostolicall Epistles were written and in them some poynts necessaty to be believed which therfor were not necessary to be written by him Wherfor you cannot maintayne this sense as being contradictory both to your self and the common doctrine of Protestants 104. What then remaynes but that S. Luke vnderstood All that was necessary to be written by himself without omission of any such point according to the particular purpose and End which he had in writing his Gospell by the particular motion assistance and direction of the holy Ghost as we see every one of the foure Evangelists and other Canonicall writers do not deliver all the same things for matter or manner as the holy Ghost for ends knowen to his Infinite Wisdome did moue and direct them This sense is true and contaynes both a full Answer and a cleare Confutation and as I may say a totall Destruction of your Objection for any force it can haue against vs. For now you are obliged to proue out of some other evident text of scripture that the Holy Ghost intended that S. Luke should write in his Gospell all things necessary to be believed before you can assure vs that he by the word All vnderstood all such necessary points but then you change your Medium or Argument and passe to a new distinct proof and clearly confess that the Objection which you haue brought is of no force vnless antecedently to this word All you proue that S. Luke intended to sett downe in particular all necessary Poynts Yea though you could proue by some other Argument independently of the word All that S. Lukes purpose was to write all necessary Points of Faith yet from thence you could only infer that if All were taken in that sense it should containe a truth but not that it hath de facto that sense and not some other meaning because there is no necessity that every part of scripture contayne all truth though we are infallibly sure that it contaynes nothing but truth How vaine then is your bragg of the evidence of this Text of S. Luke for your purpose Even yourself shew how litle you can gather from the word All when Pag 210. N. 40. you say that every one of the Evangelists must be believed to haue expressed all necessary Poynts because otherwise how haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the Titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Thus you say and then add these words By the whole Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but All that makes vp the covenant between God and man But by what or whose Commission do you vnderstand the whole Gospell with that limitation and declaration is not all that is contayned in the Gospell of S. Luke or of the other Evangelists part of their Gospells respectively And is not this still to begg the Question and suppose or take as granted that the designe of the Evangelists was to set downe all things necessary to salvation or all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Or do you not by this your voluntary restriction of All beare witness that you haue no other ground for vnderstanding All poynts or the whole Gospell to be vnderstood of all necessarie poynts except your owne voluntary affirmation and preconceyved opinion 105. Thirdly Of all men in the world you haue least reason to vrge this Text of S. Luke though it were granted the meaning therof to be that which you pretēd My reason is grounded in a doctrine which you deliver P 144. N. 32. in these words For those things which the Apostles professed to deliver as the Dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as divine Revelations why we should take them as divine revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Which doctrine though in it self very vntrue yet being by you believed to be true engages you in a very hard taske of proving that S. Luke in these words all and of all intended to deliver a divine Revelation and not only a Narration of his owne Certainly if your doctrine could be true in any case it might with greatest reason be conceyved to be such in prefaces and like occasions wherin the writer may seeme to declare his owne intention endeavour and proceeding rather than matter of doctrine Manners or revelations from God as we see S. Luke in the preface to his Gospell sayth Visum est mihi assecuto omnia It seemed good to me not Visum est Deo mihi It hath seemd good to God and me or Visum est Spiritui
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
which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childrē cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of
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
say in your Answer to the Direction where having first set downe your nynth Motive to be a Catholique in these words Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the beginning mayntayned with grosse falsifications and calumnyes wherof their prime controversy Writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty Your answer is this N. 43. To the 9. Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Which though it be very false as it touches vs and not so much as offered to be proved by you yet it clearly destroyes your owne kind of Tradition For if both Protestants and Catholiks be notoriously and in high degree guilty of gross falsifications in these tymes why may not the same be sayd to Heretiks in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last past to the six last Ages before them and vpward till we come to Christ himself And so neither Catholikes nor Protestants need now corrupt Authors or Historyes but will find it done to their hands vnless your meaning be that Protestants maintayne their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnyes and are more notoriously and in a higher degree guilty therof than any Heretiks before them But why do I speak by Inferences and argue by parity of reason Since you also expressly directly and immediatly assirme what I inferred while you say to vs If you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpō the Authors of the six last Ages before thē and so vpwards till we come to Christ himself In which words you say much more then I inferrd that by your reasō we could not be sure but that as Protestāts are by your owne confession notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree so former heretiks haue bene For you speake even of the Church and aske how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not Vsurpe the same Authority of corrupting vpon the Authors of the last six Ages before them and so vpwards till c And this will appeare more easy to haue bene done in the tymes nearest our Saviour and the Apostles when fewer Authors did write in so much as some Protestants affirme S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious and that helived Aº 140. And if the first writings and storyes be once corrupted what certainty can we haue of the rest And then Good Sr. If we cannot know but that the Church hath done this what is become of your tradition which for ought you proofess to know will deliver only fained Authors corrupted Storyes forged Miracles Apocriphall Scriptures But in this lyes a mystery not knowen to every one vnless he haue some acquaintance with Socinian Writers who press Protestants with this Argument If the Church might erre and is belieued by you to haue erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther and so vpwards from Age to Age till the first six hundred yeares after Christ which you say were pure what certainty or solid Reason can you alledg why the Church might not also erre in those yeares since you do not hold Her to haue bene Infallible An Argument vnanswerable by Protestants who ther for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible or els can haue no certainty that she did not erre or corrupt or permitted the corruption of Authors and Storyes and Scriptures and forging of Miracles in any Age farr from or neere to the Apostles 83. 3. If the motives of Honour and profit which you Object against the Roman Church Would be very apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerfull if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church I beseech you either informe vs what Christian Church distinct from the Roman or such as agreed with Her against Protestants was there before Luther to wipe away this your cause of suspition Or els giue vs leaue to inferr that you grant there was indeed cause of that suspotion You say Pag 14. N. 14. I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to proue a perpetuall visible Church distinct from yours If this be not necessary it remaynes either that it is not necessary to free Christian Religion from being esteemed a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors or that you are highly and even ridiculously injurious against the Roman Church as if she a one though not distinct from the Protestant Church could give occasion of any such wicked suspicion and finally that if still you will say there is any thing which would be apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion is a humane invētion it must be the Christian church herself which is a blasphemy fit for such as you are who reduce our belief of Scripture and the assent of Christian Faith to Probability Opinion and meere humane Tradition and such as being according to your Principles for ought you know corrupted is no better than a humane invention 84. 4. What you say of vs Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselselves into the streames by litle and litle some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently and some more lately makes as I touched aboue a faire way to say the same of some Bookes or parcells or clauses of Scripture and of any Point of Christian Faith which some insidel or Heretike or other enemy of Christian Religion will say came not from the fountaine of Truth but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by litle and litle c which being once granted as possible to happen and we are not sure but in fact that happened if we deny a Living watchfull Guide assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost Your Tradition will also loose all credit as being subject to the like danger of not coming from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but of being corrupted forged and having insinuated itself by litle and litle c For if this may happen so easily to Authors Historyes Tradition and Doctrine your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane Historye is manifestly subject to the same exception and totall vncertainty 85. 5. You say of vs who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted I beseech you where or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors Yourself know this to be a vast vntruth But if it were true and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted it seemes by this your owne saying you cānot haue your Traditiō frō any sort of Authors which may not be justly questioned whether or no they remaine vncorrupted And is
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant 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 one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
his defence of Hooker teachers the same Doctrine and neither you nor any Protestant in the world can haue any ground to thinke that it is possible to convince them of fal shood in this matter and therfor this vncertainty which you impute to vs falls heavy vpon yourself and other Protestants if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholikes aÌ„d some chief ProtestaÌ„ts belieue to be necessary 33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholikes about the necessity of Intention it is so reasonable and cleare that it is strang any can call it in Question For I beseech you if a madman or a foole ar a drunken man or an infant or one in his sleepe should chance to cast water vpon one and pronounce the Forme should such an one be baptized or if he were baptized already were such an action of such persons a rebaptizatioÌ„ If one with purpose only to learne the manner of baptizing did practise the pronouncing the words and applying the Matter should that be true Baptisme If one by chance reading or disputing or for some other end should pronounce the words of Consecration out of Scripture and that without his knowlege there should chance to be bread aÌ„d wine with in a morall distaÌ„ce should he consecrate the Eucharist Or are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specifyed least they consecrate whether they will or noâ— Are not these foolish absurdityes If you say and it is all that can be imagined you can say that at least he who pronounces the words must exercise a deliberate humane morall free Action which madmen infants c. nor even men in their wits cannot exercise when they are ignorant of the morall presence of the matter that is to be consecrated but that it is not necessary besides the substance of a morall Action to intend also to administer a Sacrament I answer first This answer evacuates the ground of Heretiks who say That intention is not necessary because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God and therfor must not depend vpon the morality of that Action which morality depends vpon the intention of him that pronounces the words to wit that he intend to doe it seriously aÌ„d not in jeast or by way only of pronouncing the materiall words without their signification and so the salvation of soules must depend vpon a secret intention of which we cannot be sure as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtuall or actuall inteÌ„tion If for the validity of a Sacrament it be sufficient to exercise a deliberate action without any further reference or Intention one could not without a deadly sin wash an infant already baptized and for devotion say I wash the in the name of the Father c as meÌ„ are woÌ„t to say I doe this in Gods name because according to this answer it would be repabtization 2. I answer if one be supposed to intend the performance of the Sacramentall action for the substance no reason can be imagined why he should not inteÌ„d to doe as others do in such an action for example if the child be brought to be Christened and the Minister deliberately apply water and pronounce the Forme ether can be no cause which can moue him at least not to intend that which there are wont to do in the like case and to thinke the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen argues only in you an excessiue desire to impugne by whatsoever arguments our Catholique Doctrine 34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression and answer some Points to which you referr yourself in this Pag 94. N. 109. in these words All which things as I haue formally proved deâ—end vpon so many vnâ—ertaine suppositions that no human judgment can possibly be resolved in them For although what you pretend to haue bene formally proved hath bene in effect answered already yet I thought sit to examine every point in particular that so the Foundation of your assertions in this place being overthrowne all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make may evidently appeare false and ruinous and so fall to the ground 35. Cha Ma Part. 1. Chap 2. N. 16. having shewed out of Brierly Tract 1. Sect 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2. Chap 2. Sect 10. Subd 2. That the Translations of Scripture made by Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basill Castâ—lio Calvin Beza and Geneva Bibles as also the English Translation are mutually condemned by Protestants themselves respectiue as corrupting the Word of God and the Authors as Antichrists and deceivers Wicked and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost sacrilegious Ethnicall making the Text of the Gospell to leap vp and downe vsing violence to the letter of the Gospell adding to the Text changing the Text deserving either to be purged from those manifold errours which are both in the Text and in the margent or els vtterly to be prohibited in the Translation of the Psalmes in addition substraction and alteration differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least and such as is doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe therto depraving the sense obscuring the truth deceiving the ignorant in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense and that the Translators shew themselves to loue darkness more than light falshood more than truth taking away from the Text adding to the Text to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost c. This I say Charity Maintayned having shewed adds these words Let Protestants consider duly these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith Faith according to them relyes vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater evidency of truth than that it is evident some of theÌ„ embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remayneth but that truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of Divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfor if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Church against which the gates of Hell can never so farr prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceyue the Christian world with false Scriptures 87. Against these words Pag 76. N. 63. you speak in this manner This Objection though it may seeme to do you great service for the present yet I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged it against vs as a fault that we make mens salvation depend vpon
errour should chance to creepe into it the Church can never make vse of that errour And therfor to treate here at large of this particular Translation would be a labour both fruitless and needless divers Catholique Divines having learnedly done it and every one may goe to Bellarmin de Uerbo Dei Lib 2. Cap 9.10.11.12.13.14 where he answers all the Objections of Heretikes 42. To exaggerate the vncertainty of Baptisme and consequently of Absolution N. 64. you will needs suppose that A sew a More an Atheist or an Arian or any that believes not the Doctrine of the Trinity are not capable of having due intention for administring Baptisme which yet is very vntrue For such men as these notwithstanding their particular Errours may seriously intend to do as much as they can and as Christians are wont to doe in which case if they obserue the true Matter and Forme their Errours haue no influence into their intention but are wared and layd aside as if they were not at all For in effect their intention is this If Christian Religion be true or if this Action of Baptizing be of any valve I for my part intend to make of it the most and best I can Now this condition being true and subsisting it followes that that Action will be a true baptizing This me thinkes you should not deny who were knowen to be an Anti-trinitarian and Arian and yet I conceyve you wold be loath that Catholikes or Protestāts should belieue that if you baptized any the Baptisme was invalid and of necessity to be repeated The like I say of Absolution which may be valid though the Priest be in his mynd an Heretike vpon such conditions as I expressed concerning the Administration of Baptisme You say N. 66. that our Rule is Nihil dat quod non habet which is true in some cases but we haue no such generall Rule A Catechume for example or any other may validly Baptise though himself be not Baptized And no wonder seing the Minister is but the instrument of Allmighty God and it is not required that an instrument haue in it self all the perfections conditions or qualityes which are communicated to the effect although in our present case the Minister immediatly only applyes the Matter and forme and makes his intention all which is in his power to doe thoughe be not Baptized 43. You say N. 68. That according to our Principles When we haue done as much as God requires for our salvation yet can we by no meanes be secure but that we may haue the ill luck to be damned which is to make salvation a matter of chance and which a man may faile of not only by an ill life but by ill fortune 44. This I haue answered already that to be secure is a happyness of the next not of this world where he who pretends to be secure is in most danger not to be safe And besides I must apply here what I noted aboue That it is one thing whether or no a Sacrament be valid and another whether the defect of that invalidity may be supplyed by some other Meanes If the nullity be of a Sacrament the effect wherof is not necessary to salvation it is cleare that one may be saved though the Sacrament be invalid The difficulty is in those Sacraments which as Divines speake are necessary necessitate medij being ordained to conferr the first justifying Grace and forgiue deadly sin incompatible with Grace Of this condition are the Sacraments of Pennance and Baptisme 45. As for the Sacrament of Pennance the Doctrine of Catholikes is not subject to cast men vpon perplexityes as you pretend nor to make salvation a matter of chance which a man may fayle of not only by an ill life but by ill fortune For we teach that sin alone is the cause of damnation and neither ill fortune nor any thing els If one in state of deadly sin were taken out of this world by a suddain death or fall out of his wits so vnexpectedly that he could not repent he shall be damned not for any new sin committed by omitting to repent which was not in his power to doe in those circumstances but for his former sins committed and never forgiven because never repented as if one having committed a robery endeavour to fly but faile of his purpose he shall be executed for his robery not for failing to escape though he had not bene executed if he had not bene taken in his endeavour to escape And therfor you say very vntruly that according to our Principles when we haue done as much as God requires for our salvation yet we may haue the all luck to be damned For according to our Principles and belief God requires for our salvation that we do not sin but that we keepe his commandements which by the assistance of his Grace all may obserue and if we do so we are very secure 46. But you will say if one haue sinned and afterward do as much as God requires of him for his salvation he may haue the ill lucke to be damned Answer God hath provided Meanes sufficient on his part and if by accident or malice of men they haue not their effect that defect cannot be imputed to God nor shall ever any man be damned except for sin alone This yourself must grant For you belieue or pretend to belieue that there are some Points of Faith so Fundamentall and indispensably necessary to be believed that they are as you say minimum vt sic without which none can hope for salvation Suppose then some Pastour or other vpon whom an vnlearned man might prudently rely and had no better meanes to informe himself should malitiouslly teach him an errour in those Fundamentall Articles or els say they were not necessary and that the vnlearned person believed his Pastour I aske what would you say in this case Can this poore man be saved without that Faith which is indispensably necessary to Salvation To say he can were to speake plaine contradictoryes that such a Faith were and were not necessary if he be damned will you inferr that when one hath done as much as God requires for his salvation yet he is not secure but may haue the ill lucke to be damned which say you is to make salvation a matter of chance and which a man may faile of not only by an ill life but by ill fortune If you answer That he is damned not for ignorance or errour caused by the malice of an other but for his owne sinnes and that God had provided meanes sufficient in themselves you make good what I sayd and must Answer your owne chiefe Objection against vs Or if you answer further That if he who fayled in not believing all Fundamentall Points had in his former life and Actions cooperated with Gods Grace His Divine Goodness would not haue fayld one way or other to giue him Direction and light without permitting him to be deceyved in a matter
the Eucharist depend vpon the casualtyes of the Consecrators true Priesthood and intention and yet commanding men to belieue it for certaine that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine â—â—â—ought they can possibly know may be nothing els but a piece of bread so exposing them to the danger of idolatry and consequently of damnation 65. Answer First Who will not wonder you should object to vs danger of idolatry by reason of some particular case or application of a generall true Ground which can be neither Heresy nor formall idolatry while Protestants are exposed to danger of Heresy and idolatry and consequently of damnation by reason of the very generall Ground by which their Actions should be directed Luther and Lutherans belieue the Reall Presence and divers of their chiefest Writers expressly teach that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist And Kemnitius proves it by the severall sayings of the Saints Austine Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen The Reader may be pleased to see Brierley Tract 2. Cap 1. Sect 3. Seing then Zwinglians Calvinists Socinians and all they who deny the Reall Presence hold the opinion of Lutherans to be false and that the Eucharist for substance is but a piece of bread according to your Objection those Lutherans expose themselves not only to the danger of idolatry and consequently of damnation but also to certaine idolatry if the Faith of Sacramentaryes be certainly true as themselves hold it to be On the contrary side If Christ be really and substantially present in the Sacrament they who deny both his Presence and Adoration are Heretiks and expose themselves to the danger of a sin no lesse haynous than idolatry For it is no less if not more injurious to deny that honour to any person which is due to him than it is to yeild greater respect than is due rather this latter is less grievous that that former because to exibite due honour is one of those precepts which Divines call Affirmatiue and do not oblige for all tymes but expressly to deny that honour which is due to one yea and avouch it not to be due is ranked in the class of Negatiue Precepts which oblige for all places tymes and other circumstances Thus we are not obliged to be at all tymes in act of adoring God but we are bound never to deny the supreme honour which Divines call Latria to be due to his Divine Majesty If therfor Lutherans be Hererikes and Idolaters for adoring Christ in the Eucharist if it be only a piece of bread other Protestants shall be Heretikes and as bad or worse than Idolaters if indeed Christ true God and man be really present The difference then and doubtfullness among you concernes Matter of Faith but that which you object to vs concernes only matter of Fact We are most assured of this generall Ground Christ is reâ—â—â— present in the Consecrated Hoast but it is not an Article of Faith that this Hoast in particular is Consecrated or that that which seemes to be bread and wine is indeed such You say We command men to belieue for certaine that Christ is present in the Eucharist but for certaine you speake against your conscience if you would haue the Reader to belieue that we command men to belieue with certainty of Faith that Christ is present in this or that particular Hoast though vnless we haue some grounded positiue reason to the contrary we ought not positively to doubt which would be but an Act of imprudency or perhaps vncharitableness or injustice as it happens in a thousand cases wherin we haue no certainty of Faith or Metaphisicall evidence and yet it would be meere foolishness positively and practically to doubt of them nor could there be in this case any shadow of danger to committ formall or culpable Idolatry Religion is a morall Uertue and requires not for its direction in particular occasions the certainty of Faith but is regulated by the vertue of Prudence which in our case doth most reasonably judg that Christ is really present in that Hoast which we haue good reason to judge is Consecrated and if there be no danger of formall idolatry there can be no danger of damnation But in the meane tyme you should consider that by your fallible Faith you can haue no certainty that Christ either is or is not present in the Eucharist and so you expose yourself to the danger of a grievous sin by not believing and adoring Christ if really he be present Besides seing you hold that any errour against Divine Revelation is damnable in itself no man must read Scripture or seeke to find the sense therof least he chance to misse of the true meaning aÌ„d so expose himself to danger of coÌ„mitting a thing damnable in itself You blame Charity Maintained because you conceaue he would not haue vs subject to any vncertainty in matters belonging to salvation and yet now you object against all Catholiques that they adore our Saviour when they are not absolutely certaine that he is present though indeed if passion did not blind you you would condemne Lutherans only who belieue that bread remaynes and therfor if Christ be not really present as you hold for certaine he is not they adore that which is nothing els but a piece of bread wheras we Catholikes believing that bread doth not remayne cannot possibly direct our intentions and Adoration to bread but to Christ himself and so the most that can be imagined will only be this that we adore Christ thinking he is where he is not our intention being still carried to him aÌ„d not to any Creature which if you will hold for true idolatry you must condemne all good Christians of idolatry who adore God as He is in Heaven Earth and everie where though in the opinion of your fellow Socinians He be really and substantially only in Heaven Even Dr. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying Pag 258. Numb 16. speakes home to the purpose of freeing Catholiks from all danger of idolatry in these words idolatry is a forsaking the true God and in giving the Dâ—vine Worship to a Creature or to an idoll that is to an imaginary God who hath no foundation in essence or existence And is that kinde of superstition which by Divines is called superstition of an vndue object Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their mindes their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternall God hypostatically ioyned with his holy humanity which humanity they belieue actually present vnder the veile of the SacrameÌ„tall signes And if they thought him not bresent they are so farre from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves professe it to be idolatry to doe soe which is a demonstration that their soule hath nothing in it that is idololatricall If their confidence
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
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
by knowing every plain Text of Scripture which as I sayd is an intollerable burthen 12. Fourthly It imports very much to know summarily and certainly what points men are obliged to belieue explicitly that they may with more facility application and perfection learne them and not be diverted by things not necessary with prejudice to the knowledg of Articles Fundamentall or necessary by obliging every one to know every Text of Scripture Neither can you answer that this is done already in the Creed of the Apostles For we haue that forme of Creed by Tradition only and according to your principles we cannot belieue any thing contained in the Creed except we first know it to be contained in Scripture from which if we cannot learne what is Fundamentall and what is not we cannot be certaine that the particular points contained in the Creed are Fundamentall nor can you learne out of any text of Scripture that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points to say nothing that the Creed without the Church and Tradition is not sufficient to declare the meaning of itself and so we see Protestants cannot agree in the sense of any one Article therof as I shewed hertofore Besides if the Creed containe all Fundamentall Points why do you deny that it is possible to giue such a Catalogue Or if you say that even in the Creed it is impossible to determine precisely what Points are Fundamentall my former Argument retaines its force that by this meanes one cannot tell what he is chiefly to study and learne nor what he is bound explicitly to belieue in the Creed itself Nay since you can alledg no precept out of Scripture that all men are obliged to know and belieue the Creed the Creed of itself can be to you no rule at all either for Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points but still you are devolved to find in the whole Bible Fundamentall Articles of Faith mixt with Points not Fundamentall and so it availes Protestants nothing to alledg the Creed as a summary of all Fundamentall Points Lastly Potter Pag 241. holds it only for very probable that the Creed containes all necessary Points and yourself Pag 194. N. 4. say of Potter he affirmed it not as absolutely certaine but very probable as also rhe Doctour pretends only that all Articles of pure Faith but not of practise are contained in the Creed and yet no man can be saved without believing all Fundamentall points whether they be purè credenda or belong to practise and therfore we must conclude that to alledg the Creed for solving this my Argument can in no wise satisfy 13. Fiftly According to Protestants we cannot be obliged to belieue explicitely any Object vnless we find such an obligation evidently set downe in Scripture And if such an obligation be evidently expressed in Scripture it followes that you may giue vs a Catalogue of such Points If not you cannot burden mens consciences with such an obligation not expressed in Scripture 14. Sixthly I oppose yourself to yourself Pag 149. N. 37. You speake of Protestants in this manner Seing they ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and go about to proue their Assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutly and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to belieue this thing that these only Points are Fundamentall Which words seeme to signify that Protestants can proue out of Scripture that such and such things only are Fundamentalls and what is this but to giue a Catalogue so exact that they may not only say these Points are Fundamentall but also that these only are such that is these and neither more nor fewer than these are Fundamentall Articles And Pag 150. N. 40. You say They Protestants may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so And Pag 408. N. 35. You tell Charity Maintayned that he overreaches in saying that Protestants cannot agree what Points are Fundamentall and yet you grant in the same place that they do not agree and what reason can be given of this their so constant and long continued disagreement except because they haue no assured meanes and rule how to do it Also Pag 160. N. 53. To these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 19. Scripture doth deliver divine Truths but seldome qualifyes them or declares whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to salvation You answer Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the essentiall parts of Christianity if it were necessary What difference put you between an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity and a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points And how agrees this with what we haue heard you say Pag 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall And Pag 23. N. 27. You say He that will goe about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And Pag 22. N. 27. A little before the words I cited last treating whether it be possible and necessary to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls you say For my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other What a confusion is here First It is possible it is not possible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls 2. It is possible to giue an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity 3. Pag 135. N. 14. Perhaps we cannot exactly destinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed 4. I suspect that it is neither necessary nor profitable to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points 5. It is a business of extreame difficultie 6. it is an intricate peece of business and almost impossible that one should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it By all which you can gather nothing but contradictions and ambiguityes an Affirmation a Negation a Perhaps a Suspicion an extreme Difficulty an intricate peece of businesse a Possibility an impossibility an almost Impossibility and finally nothing certaine but this that in this most important matter of Fundamentall Points Protestants neither haue nor can haue any certainty but that it may be so and so it may be neither so nor so as we see by experience that they do not only disagree in assigning what Points are Fundamentall but some affirme certaine Points to be Fundamētall Truths which others belieue to be Fundamentall errours But now in an other respect also I oppose yourself to yourself 15. Seaventhly For I must vpon occasion still put you in mynd of your doctrine that it is not
Errour and embracing the contrary Fundamentall Truth and so cannot be sure that he hath true Repentance vnless he know in particular what Truths and Errours are Fundamentall And you deliver a very pernicious Errour in saying Pag 159 N. 52. whosoever dyes with Faith in Christ and contrition for all sinnes knowen and vnknowen in which heape all his si full Errours must be comprized can no more be hurt by any the most maâ—ignant and pestilent Errour then S. Paul by the Viper which he shooke of into the fire For if he remayne in his Errour about Fundamentall Points he wants the contrary actuall explicite belief of them which is supposed to be absolutely necessary to Salvation and so he will not cast that viper but it will cast him into the fire His Errour then which is supposed to be Fundamentall must be knowen to him and being knowen to be an Errour eo ipso it is rejected since our vnderstanding cannot assent to a knowen falshood and therfore cannot be comprized in the heape of sinfull Errours knowen and vnknowen but must be distinctly knowen and forsaken 22. How can you say that all Protestants agree touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Savioâ—r of the worâ—d They may agree in the words or Grammaticall signification of them as any boy Turke Jew or Infidell could not but doe if they vnderstood the toung wherin those words were set downe But for the sense you could scarcely haue picked out Articles of greater moment and withall lesse agreed on among Protestants since every word discovers their irreconciliable differences concerning them and yet which is well to be observed they concerne points of practise and things absolutely necessary to salvation as we haue heard you confess and therfore an errour in them is damnable without all remedy 23. Let vs cast an eye vpon every word Repentance Protestants are not agreed wherin true Repentance consists as may be seene in Bellarmine de Poenit Lib 1. Chap 7. Lib. 2 Chap 4. and you in particular hold a Dòctrine different from the rest That Attrition alone is sufficient and that whether it be Attrition or Contrition it requires the extirpation of all vicious habits which you say is a thing of difficulty and tyme and cannot be performed in an instant and what sinner though repenting himself never so hartily at the houre of his death can be saved with this your kind of Repentance which at that houre is an impossible thing From dead works What will you vnderstand by dead works You know many chiefe Protestants hold all our best works to be of themselves not only dead but deadly sinnes and so Repentance of dead workes must signify Repentance that ever we haue done any good that we haue believed hoped and loved God and our neighbour obeyed our Parents kept any of the Commandements c And if you consider the person from whom they proceed in case he be predestinated no sin can hurt him whatsoever he doe To the former Repentance is needless to the latter fruitless How then do Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead workes or in Repentance itself For the second Point Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world there is not one word wherin Protestants agree for the sense Faith You say A probable Faith is sufficient all others deny it professiing that Christian Faith necessary to salvation must be infalible and therfory you cannot be saved by your kind of Faith even by the doome of Protestants and in that respect all men who haue care of their soules ought to detest your Doctrine and Booke But do those other Protestants agree among themselves what Faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation They do not Some hold that Faith necessary and sufficient for Justification is that wherby one believes certainly that his sinnes are forgiven and that they are forgiven even by believing so according to which Doctrine what necessity can there be of Repentance Seing men are justifyed precisely by such a Faith and how then did you tell vs that Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works Of which strang kind of Faith He whom you call the learned Grotius in his Discussio Riveriani Apologetici c Pag 2â—0 saith very truly Evangelij vox haec est Resipiscite Facite fructus dignos Poenetentiae adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies donec hodie nominetur vt non obduretur quis ex vobis fallacia peccati Terra proferens spinas tribulos proxima est maledictioni cujus consummatioin combustionem At Riveti eique similium longè alia agendiratio remissa tibi sunt peccata Vnde id sciam Debes id credere At quo Argumento cum non remitantur omnibus Remissa sunt credentibus Et quid credentibus Remissa sibi esse peccata Mirus verò circulus Ita si istos sequimur remissio est causa credendi nihil enim credi debet factum esse nisi quod factum est contra credere causa remissionis quia conditio est requisita ad remissionem Haec verè sunt inextricabilia Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world Who is ignorant how deeply Protestants disagree in these points You Socinians absolutely deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father and Potter Pag 113.114 cites the doctrine of some whom he termes men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to loue and honour Iesus Christ are in the Visible Christian Church and by Catholikes to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment cited by Potter is Thomas Morton who in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel teaches that the Churches of Arians who denyed our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they hold the Foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Son of God and saviour of the world Which are your very words Wherin appeares your hypocrisy in calling Christ the Son of God which men will conceaue you vnderstand as all good Christians do that he is consubstantiall to his Father wheras you meane only as the Arians did that he was the Son of God by conjunction of will or some such accidentall way aÌ„d so ProtestaÌ„ts do not agree in a point simply necessary Saviour of the world For SociniaÌ„s deny Christ to haue satisfyed for the sins of the world as may be seene in Volkelius Lib 4. Cap 2. and Cap 22. against other Protastants who in an other extreme hold that he alone satisfied so as no satisfaction is required at our hands though wee tell them that such our satisfaction depends on and taks all its valve from his You are an excellent advocate for Potter seing you differ from him in this Point which Pag 242. he calls that most important and
Protestants haue no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture Your supposition therfore in the consult of Physitians that in the receypt of which they spoke though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous yet not hurtfull cannot be applyed against vs but retorted vpon yourselfe that as in case the whole receypt did containe some things hurtfull no man could in conscience take it so 〈◊〉 being in danger of falling into damnable errours by occasion of interpreting Scripture without dependance or relation to an infallible Guide cannot without manifest danger of their soules hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone and therfore must resolue to seeke a Living Guide the true Church of God which they shall be sure to find if they seeke with great instance constancy and humility 59. Out of what hath beene sayd in this Chapter these Corollaryes are evidently doduced That there are certaine Fundamentall Articles of Faith which vnless a man belieue actually and explicitly he cannot haue the substance of Faith nor can any Congregation be a true Church nor can there be any hope of salvation as all both Catholikes and Protestants affirme That vnless there be some Meanes to be assured what those Fundamentall Articles are none can be certaine that they haue the substance of Faith or be members of the true Church or oanâ—â—pect salvation That hitherto Protestants notwithstanding their â—â—most endeavour could never declare what those Points are That the meanes which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to misse of them is neither sufficient nor possible That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assigne any such Catalogue That Catholikes 〈◊〉 a most certaine and infallible way to know such Points and all other Truths as occasion shall require by submitting to a Living Judg of Controversyes And therfore That none can be sure that he hath true Faith is a member of the true Church or is in possibility to be saved vnless he belieue profess and obey such an Infallible Judg the One alwayes existent Visible Church of God From which Truth this other evidently followes That whosoever devide themselves from the Communion of that true Church are guilty of the grievous sinne of Schisme And that Protestants haue done so shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP VII PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME 1. THE Title of this Chapter having bene made good at large by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. against all that Dr. Potter could invent in Defense of Protestants If now I can confute whatsoever you alledg in Defence of the Doctour the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintayned must in all right be adjudged to keepe their first possession and this Truth remayne constant That Protestants and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formall Schisme 2. In the beginning Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chapt 5. N. 4. layes this ground That the Catholique Church signifyes One Congregation of Faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them Faithfull Believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division or Schisme This is a very evident and certaine Truth and therfore Tertulian de Praescrip Cap. 41. observes it as a property of heretiks that they communicate with all Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent Nihil enim interest illis licèt diversa tractantibus dum ad vnius veritatis expugnationem conspirent Thus we see Protestants will needs call all Brethren who are not Papists Yea many will not haue Papists make a Church distinct from them S. Austine was of an other mynd from Protestants who de Uera Relig Cap 5. condemnes Philosophers because teaching different things of God yet they frequented the same sacrifices and adds So it is believed and taught that it is the principall point of mans salvation that there is not an other Philosophy that is study of wisdome and an other Religion when they whose Doctrine we approue not communicate not in Sacraments with vs. Which Truth S. Austine judges to be of so great valve and necessity and the contrarie so pernicious as he avoucheth Si hoc vnum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret And Lib 19. cont Faust Cap 11 he sayth Men cannot be joyned into any name of Religion true or false vnless they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments Therfore Communion in Sacraments is essentially necessary to vnite the members of One Church and distinguish it from all other In this manner Act 2. 42. it is sayd of those first Christians They were presevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Communication of breaking bread and prayer Behold a Communication not only in Faith or Doctrine but also in Sacraments and Prayers Neither do Protestants deny this Truth Molins Lib 1. cont Perron Cap 2. saith The ancient Doctours are wont to vnderstand by the Church which oftentymes they call Catholike the whole Society of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in Faith vnited togeather in Communion and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatikes and Heretiks which we will not reject By which words it appeares That the Holy Fathers and even Protestants make vnity in Communion against Schisme no less essentiall to the Church then in Faith against Heresy Field Lib 1. Cap 15. The Communion of the Church consisteth in Prayers and dispensation of Sacraments And Lib 2. Cap 2. Communion in Sacraments is essentiall to the Church 3. The reason of this Truth is very cleare For without Communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publike worship of God the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismaticall congregation Because seing Schismatiks as they are distinguished from Heretiks cannot be distinguished by a different Faith wherin they are supposed to agree with Catholiks they can be distinguished only by externall Communion which therfore must be essentiall to the Church as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schisme S. Austine speakes excellently to this purpose Epist 48. You are with vs in Baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in the spirit of vnity in bond of peace finally in the very Catholique Church you are not with vs. Which words declare that the spirit of vnity and bond of peace are necessary and essentiall to constitute men members of One Church All agree that to be one Church there must be vnity in Faith and seing Faith is ordaynd to the salvation of soules 1. Pet 1.9 by the true worship of God vnity in this worship is no less necessary than vnity in Faith The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation and therfore doth essentially require visible signes to distinguish it from all other companyes by Sacraments externall worship of God and a publike Liturgie which if
yeild sufficient cause to forsake her communion which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not erre Fundamentally and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion by reason of her errours We must therfore conclude that seing there can be no just cause to depart from the communion of the Church and yet that there might be just cause to do so if she were subject to corruption or errour we must absolutely belieue her to be infallible and that they who teach the contrary and vpon that pretence forsake her communion are guilty of Schisme and heresy 24. And this is a fit place to put you in mynd of your doctrine that the Apostles after the receaving of the holy Ghost and the whole Church with them erred in a point clearly revealed and commanded by our Saviour Christ about preaching the Gospells to gentils For this false doctrine supposed I aske whether or no it had been necessary or lawfull to leaue the communion of that most primitiue Church If it were not lawfull then errours even in Faith affoard not a just cause to forsake a Church If you say it was lawfull to forsake the Apostles and the whole Church of their tyme you blaspheme And yet if the Apostles and the whole primitiue Church did erre they that is all Christians might and ought to haue been forsaken and therfore if it were but to avoide this gross absurdity we must say that neither the Church of that nor of consequent ages could erre 25. Thus much be sayd in the first way That considering things as they are in themselves the Church might be forsaken if she could erre and therfore because it is most certaine that she can never be forsaken we must firmely belieue that she cannot erre though indeed I must add that if she could erre she might and might not be forsaken it being no strang thing that vpon a false supposition contradictoryes may follow wherof more herafter 25. Now let vs see what may be sayd in the second way or consideration that is in order to Protestants and their grounds or ad hominem though I must confess this to be a nice and difficult vndertaking by reason of their inconstancy saying and vnsaying as they are forced by different or contrary occasions which make them doe as they can not what they should and never hold constantly what they ought 27. First then we suppose that the Church out of which Luther departed was a true Church for substance whether it were the Roman or any other Church Otherwise we must say that Christ had no true Church on earth which you Potter and all chiefest Protestants deny and expressly teach that alwayes there hath been is and ever shal be such a Church as we haue seene aboue In so much as D. Lawd Pag 141. saieth All Divines Ancient and Moderne Romanists and Reformers agree in this That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostasy And Pag 142. he saieth that otherwise falshood in the very Article of the Creed that the Church is Holy may be the subject of the Catholike Faith which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme 28. Secondly Hence it followes that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point every one wherof vtterly destroyes the Church but that her falsly supposed errours were only in Points not Fundamentall or not absolutely necessary to salvation 29. Thirdly That if such errours in Points not Fundamentall do not exclude salvation men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths it being impossible that one belieue an errour and also the truth contrary to that errour and therfore if the errour be not destructiue of salvation it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary therto 30. Fourthly If therfore we can shew that according to Protestants errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not salvation it will follow of it selfe that in their grounds they might and ought to haue remayned in the externall communion of the visible Church notwithstanding such errours since by so doing they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation nor done any thing incompatible therwith For which we take your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient And say I how can it be necessary if one may be saved without it Let vs now see what Protestants hold in this matter 31. I grant that somtyme in words they will seeme to teach that it is necessary to belieue whatsoever is revealed by God if it be sufficiently proposed But if we respect their deeds and consider other grounds of their Doctrine it will appeare that they must hold the contrary ād that in express words they somtyme actually declare so much Neither ought this to seeme any strang thing since Heretiks must say and vnsay to helpe a bad cause as well as their witts will serue them In which respect I could never much approue the great paines which some Catholike Divines imploy to proue that Heretiks hold this or that because somtyme they deliver expressions contrary to that of which it is disputed whether or no it was their Opinion For all that can be inferred from such their different sayings is not that they held determinately this and not that but only that indeed they contradicted and by Gods just judgment destroyed themselves 32. Well then that it is necessary to beleeue whatsoever is revealed by God and sufficiently propounded Potter Pag 245. affirmes in these words It seemes Fundamentall to the Faith and for the salvation of every member of the Church that he acknowledge and belieue all such Points of Faith as wherof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently convinced doth oppose is obstinate an Hereticke and finally such a one as excludes himselfe out of Heaven wherinto no willfull sinner can enter And Pag 250. It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God And herupon Chillingworth Pag 11. speaks to Charity Maintayned in this manner It amazed me to heare you say that he Dr. Potter declines this question and never tells you whether or no there be any other Points of Faith which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denyed and disbelieved He tells you plainly there are none such Againe it is almost as strang to mee why you should say this was the only thing in question whether a man may deny or disbelieue any Point of Faith sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth revealed by God Produce any one Protestant that ever did so and I will giue you leaue to say it
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
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
opinions which still makes it more and more evident that with Sectaryes evidence affects rather their will or fancy than their vnderstanding And here you ought in all reason to apply to the Ancient Fathers and learned Protestants agreeing with vs against their Brethren what you say Pag 40. and 41. N. 13. in favour of Protestants in generall to proue that there is no necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe in these words The contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of diuerse senses and in such cases it is no mervaile and sure no sin if seuerall men go seuerall wayes Also the contrary beliefe may be concerning Points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hearts true louers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments Now whatsoever you judge of vs yet I hope you will not deny the Ancient Fathers and your owne Protestant Brethren to be so qualifyed as you describe men of honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and the truth c And therfore seing they vnderstood the word of God as we doe you ought to absolue them yea and vs and conceiue that Luther had no necessary cause to forsake the whole Church for Points maintayned by men of so great quality in all kinds whose authority you cannot deny to be sufficient for making a doctrine probable and for devesting the contrary of certainty and therfore according to Hookers rule they ought to haue suspended their perswasion and they offended against God by troubling the whole Church 57. Neither can you object against the Fathers what you say against vs Pag 280. N. 66. that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough c For besides that it is I know not whether more ridiculous or impious to say the Fathers were men in ignorance and the whole Church in errour at least you will not deny but those Protestants who agree with vs are knowing men and haue all the meanes of knowing the truth which other Protestants haue and they being supposed by you I hope to be men of honest and vpright hearts may without any fault at all dissent from their Brethren according to your owne rule And since you must excuse them it were manifest injustice to condemne vs who defend the same doctrine with them 58. Fifthly It is a principle of nature that no private person much lesse a Community and least of all the whole Christian world should be deprived of that good name of which they were once in peaoeable and certaine possession without very cleare and convincing evidence Seing then even Protestants grant that for divers Ages the Church and the Roman Church in particular enjoyed the good Name and Thing of being Orthodox and Pure she cannot be deprived of them without evidence neither can probability or vncertainty be sufficient to forsake her Communion as noxious O of how different a mynd are our Novelists from the Ancient Doctours of Gods Church who against all Heretiks opposed the Tradition and Succession of the Bishops of Rome as Tertuilian the SS Irenaeus Epiphanius Optatus and Austine as Calvin confesses L. 4. Instit C. 3. and thinkes to saue himselfe with this Answer Sect. 3. Cum exrra contoversiam esset c. Seing it was vndoubtedly true that nothing was altered in doctrine from the beginning till that Age they did alledg that which was sufficient to overthrow all new errours namely that they were repugnant to the Doctrine which by vnanimous consent was constantly kept from the very tyme of the Apostles themselves But this Answer can serue only to shew that the Argument of the Fathers against Heretiks was plainly of no force at all For if the Tradition and succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome were not assured of the particular assistāce of the holy Ghost no argument could be taken to proue any doctrine true because it had been taught in that Sea in regard that without such assistance Errour might haue crept in and tradition might haue delivered a falshood Therfore the Fathers alledging the Doctrine of the Roman Church for a Rule to all other must suppose such an assistance without which their adversaryes might haue rejected the Tradition of that Sea with as much facility as the Tradition and Authority of any other And to say the Fathers grounded their Argument meerly vpon matter of fact that de facto the Church of Rome had delivered otherwise than those Heretiks held and thence had inferred the falshood of their Heresyes would haue beene directly petitio principij as if they had sayd The Church of Rome de facto without any certaine assistance of the Holy Ghost holds the contrary of that which you Heretiks teach but that which she holds is true therfore your Doctrine is false For this Minor that which she holds is true had been a meere begging of the Question without any proofe at all and had been no more in effect then if the Fathers had sayd The Doctrine of the Roman Church and our Doctrine which is the same with Hers is true because we suppose it to be true and therfore yours is false Wherfore we must giue glory to God and acknowledg that the Fathers believed that the Roman Church was assisted by the Holy Ghost above other Churches not to fall into errour in matters of Faith and Religion Howsoever let vs take what Calvin grants that at least the Church of Rome conserved the Truth and purity of Faith till the tyme of S. Austine that is between the fourth and fift Age after our Saviour Christ and Heretiks commonly grant that the Church of Rome was pure for the first fiue hundred yeares Now let any man of judgment consider whether it was probable or possible that immediatly after so great purity and Sanctity so huge a deluge of superstitions Idolatryes Heresyes and corruptions could haue flowed into the Church of Rome within the space of one hundred yeares that is till the tyme of S. Gregory the Great without being noted or spoken of or contradicted by any one Especially if we consider that other doctrines which both Protestants and Catholiks profess to be Heresyes were instantly observed impugned and condemned and to say that those only of which they hold vs guilty did passe without observation of any can be judged no better than a voluntary affected foolish fancy I beseech the Protestant Reader for the Eternall good of his owne soule to pause here a little and well ponder this Point Besides S. Gregory himselfe was a most holy learned and Zealous Pastour
respect your definition as I sayd destroyes itselfe as if one could be cut off from the Church by Schisme and yet remaine a part therof A man divided from the Church remaynes a man and is part of the Community or number of men but is not a part or member of the Church as you will not deny but that if for example one should forsake all Christianity yea and fall into Judaisme Turcisme or Paganisme he should still be a part of the number of men but not a member or part of any Christian Church And it is ridiculous to say that Luther and his associats did not separate from themselves seing by their very separation they ceased to be any part of the Church and the Church remayned one whole and so by their not separation from themselves as men you cannot inferr that they did not separate from all Churches and from all true members and parts of all true Churches Yea if they be considered as members of the Church they did in some sort separate even from themselves by ceasing to be now what once they were that is true members of the Church But we shall say more of this herafter Only I obserue now if as you say Pag 264. N. 30. the sin of Schisme be a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church much more grievous must that sin be in him who separates from the whole Church or from all Churches as Luther professed to doe 74. Secondly When you say The requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church are Faith and Obedience What Faith or what Obedience meane you That Faith wherby one believes and that Obedience wherby one obeyes all the Definitions and Decrees of the Church If so then you suppose him to be vnited with the Church not only in Faith but also in externall Communion because nothing is more strictly commanded than such an vnion and Communion but then you are out of our case of being separated from the Church If you meane Faith and Obedience to God it is impossible even by your owne confession that one should obey God and divide himselfe from the externall Communion of all Churches without cause aÌ„d therfore he cannot by any such imaginary ObedieÌ„ce be a member of the Church You say Pag 272. N. 53. It concernes every man who separates from any Churches Communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient Therfore you suppose there is a strict command not to separate from any Churches Communion without necessary cause And then as for Faith you say Pag 134. N. 13. Among the conditions which Christ requires for salvation one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to haue been revealed by him Therfore say I whosoever opposes a Point though not Fundamentall in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as revealed by God failes in the condition of Obedience required for salvation and so wants one of the requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church therfore he leaves the Church and Protestants erring in such Points divide themselves from the Church and certaine it is that some of them must erre in Points at least not Fundamentall 75. Thirdly The Church essentially implyes not only Faith but also externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and publike worship of God therfore whosoever leaves the externall Communion of a Church he cannot but leaue the Church as being divided from it in a thing essentiall to the Church and consequently without which one cannot be a member thereof Moulin Lib 1. cont Peron Cap 26. saith plainly That is the true Church which is vnited togeather in profession of true Faith and Communion of Saâ—ramentâ— And Calvin Lib 4. Institut Cap § 4. saith We cannot haue two or three Churches but Christ must be divided Wherby it appeares that men cannot be of one Church vnless they be vnited in one common mysticall Body for example John hath a head a hand c and so hath Thomas but they are not said to communicate in one head or hand because the parts of their Body are not vnited in one common linke or whole Body Different Kingdomes and Commonwealths may chance to haue the same Lawes Customes Statutes yea and the same forme of Government yet that is not enough to denominate them one Kingdome or Common wealth because they haue not any such vnion or Communion as may make them one mysticall Body Dr. Lawd Pag 300. Affirmes that the Donatists agreed in Faith with the Catholike Church and yet grants that they were Schismatiks and divided from the Church which Division being supposed they could not be properly said to communicate with Her even in Faith because similitude alone without a common vnion in some Whole cannot make one a member or part of one Church But what need I proue a thing evident in it selfe The very Definition of Schisme taken properly as it is distinct from Heresy implyes an agreement in Faith and that supposed it is a separation in externall Communion only therfore similitude in Faith is not sufficient to make that one be not truly said to forsake the Church Jewes and Turks belieue one God and so do Christians and yet they cannot be sayd to be in Communion with Christians even in that Point which all of them belieue in regard they make not on mysticall Body I may eate the same meate which an excommunicate person eates but I may not eate with him not he with me So Jewes and Turks belieue some Truth which we belieue yet properly speaking they belieue not with vs because they themselves are divided from vs. One thing therfore it is to belieue the same Point and another to be vnited in the beliefe therof Neither is there in this particular any difference between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points For though one belieue all the same Fundamentall Points which another believes yet he believes them not with him because as I sayd the believers themselves are divided in Communion one from another Otherwise if you will needs haue all those to be of one Church who belieue all Fundamentall Points it will follow that there is no Schisme at all as it is distinguished from Heresy For that doctrine being supposed if one belieue all Fundamentall Points he is no Schismatike If he erre in any Fundamentall or Necessary Point he is an Heretike Therfore Schisme in this way shall never be distinguished from Heresy which yet is contrary to your owne doctrine which we cited aboue out of your Pag 271. N. 51. Where you say We are not to learne the difference betweene Schisme and Herely For Heresy we conceaue an obstanâ—te defence of any errour against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schisme a causless separation of one part of the Church from another You do not declare
tyme and then disappeared as if it had never been And by this is answered what you object in the sayd Page 260. against the saying of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 165. N. 11. That all Devines by defining Schisme to be a division from the Church suppose that there must be a knowne Church from which it is possible for men to depart 95. Object 4. Pag 254. N. 4. you cite Charity Maintayned as saying thus That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in the division must be so likewise which say you is not so certaine as you pretend But the word certainly which you set downe as the word of Charity maintayned and vpon which you ground your Objection is not to be found in his words Pag 151. which you pretend to alledge Yet because the thing in it selfe is certainly true let vs heare what you can object to the contrary You say they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall do committ a great fault wherof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and no the vtmost of their power oppose a chang though to the former state when continuance of tyme hath once setled the present 96. Answer It is no less then great prophaness in you to make a parity between a Schisme from Gods Church which is intrinsecè and essentially vnlawfull and alterations in a Civill or Ecclesiasticall state for things accidentall and of their nature indifferent For if you suppose those alterations to be of their owne nature vnlawfull and sinfull they can never be innocent who continue them nor can any continuance of tyme establish them Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church by sinfull profession of Faith contrary in many Points to the beliefe of all Churches for you suppose for the present that their separation was causeless and sinfull which is to be noted and will you say it is lawfull to continue in a false profession of Faith against ones conscience because others haue begun it How oftē do you profess that it is alwayes damnable to dissemble or speake against ones conscience in matters of Faith Well then if vpon supposition he be obliged to profess the whole Catholique Faith he must among other Points belieue that it is absolutely vnlawfull to communicate with Heretiks in their Sacraments and that there can be no just cause to liue out of the Communion of the Church and that it is vnlawfull either to begin or continue a division from Her and that they are obliged to returne to Her Communion And this I proue out of your owne words Pag 312. N. 112. it should be 113. where you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner You spend a great deale of reading and witt and reason against some men who pretending to honour and belieue the Doctrine and Practise of the visible Church you meane your owne and condemning their forefathers who forsooke her say they would not haue done so yet remaine divided from Her Communion VVhich men in my judgment cannot be defended For if they belieue the doctrine of your Church then must they belieue this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therfore if they do not so it cannot be avoyded but that they must be a'vtocatacritoi Behold whosoever believes as we do must also belieue that they cannot continue this Schisme begun by others I wish all would reflect vpon this grant which evidence of truth hath drawne from you though it hath cost you a contradiction against your saying that a Schisme with vs might be begun with sin and yet they be innocent who continue it Your captious Words that Charity Maintayned should not haue written against these kind of men in a worke which he professes to haue written meerly against Protestants shall be answered in their proper place 97. Object 5. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. said Charity vniteth all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body VVhich you say Pag 255. N. 6. is manifestly vntrue for many of them haue no Charity 98. Answer Some would say that it is hard to determine whether this objection hath more of the insolent or proud or malicious But I abstaine from censures What Charity Maintayned saied was not his alone but the Doctrine of all Divines and in particular of the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas whose express words he cited wherin 2.2 Quest 39. Art 1. in Corp he defines Schisme A voluntary separation from the vnity of that Charity wherby all the members of the Church are vnited Peccatum saith he Schismatis propriè est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intenditse ab vnitate separare quam Charitas facit In which words of this holy Doctour you haue both the affirmation of Charity Maintayned and the reason therof That as Heresy is opposite to Faith so Schisme to Charity and for that cause Heresy and Schisme are two distinct vices Otherwise how will you distinguish them In the same place as also N. 7. Charity Maintayned alledges S. Austine Lib. 1. de Fid ad Simp Cap 10. saying Heretiks corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiks by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they belieue what we belieue And Lib 1. de Serm Dom in Mon Cap. 5. Many Heretiks vnder the name of Christians deceaving mens soules do suffer many such things but where there is not sound Faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiks promise to themselves any part of this reward Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be justice The loue of our neighbour doth not worke evill which if they had they would not teare in peeces the Body of Christ which is the Church Do you not see that this Saint still opposes Heresy to Faith and Schisme to that Charity which vnites the members of Gods Church in one mysticall Body which Schisme divides Also the same Saint sayes Ep 204. Being out of the Church and divided from the heape of vnity and the bond of Charity thou shouldest be punished with eternall death though thou shouldest be burned aliue for the name of Christ Now if many of the members of the Church haue no Charity as you say they must be Schismatiks or if they be not they haue that Charity which Schismatiks want and consequently it is vntrue that they haue no Charity Will you haue them be members of the Church because they are not divided from her by Schisme and yet not be members of the Church in regard they haue no Charity Potter Pag 42. saith Though faith be kept entire yet if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnton dissolved Schisme is no lesse damnable than Heresy Why do you not object against your client That many members of
and salvation Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniversall Church 2. Since she is vnder paine of eternall damnation to be believed in some things wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment 3. Since we are obliged not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamentall Points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one Point least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall and necessary to salvation 4. That Visible Church even that Church which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed vnder Anathemas or Curses holding it as a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one Point in particular which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man in state of damnation wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger our salvation as likwise to remayne in her communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable 5. The true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command and require obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one vnless I know evidently that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far Gods Church can proceed then Gods Church herselfe Or to what Doctour can the children and Schollers with greater reason and security fly for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person or applying Scriptures against Her Doctrine or interpretation 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue fayled even in Fundamentall Points and suffered shipwrack of their salvation ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine or practise As to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages shee erred to death and wholy perished which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniversall Church within Africa or some other small tract of soile Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of the Church which cannot erre Fundamentally especially if we add that according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines One errour in Faith whether it be for the matter itselfe great or small destroyes Faith and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour is to affirme that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth 125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd N. 20. which I wish you had set downe as you found them that the Reader might haue judged how much they ought to weigh with every one who hath a serious care to saue his soule Sure I am they are growne stronger by your Objections as will appeare to any indifferent Reader 126. Your chiefest and as I may call it Fundamentall Answer is That I begg the Question in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points and that Protestants when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points vnderstand only That there shall be alwayes a Church to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls But I haue shewed hertofore that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants in fastening on them so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground in the sense which Protestants grant and which I haue proved to be true Which truth being supposed yourselfe are forced to favour vs so farr as to say Pag 163. N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greeke or the Roman Church which if we had done and set vp some setled certaine Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point And in the next N. 56. you say First we confesse no such thing thas the Church of Rome was then this Church vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose but only a Part of it Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could haue beene thus far secured this argumēt had some shew of Reason And P 150. N. 39. If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her but also learne of her what is Fundamentall and take all for Fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance wherof if I knew any one Church to he Infallible I would quickly be of that Church Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church But in the meane tyme you grant as much as will serue to overthrow all your owne Arguments in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points we haue all reason not to forsake Her And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point so that you make good both his Assertion and reason therof and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise by being quickly of that Church Heere I beseech you remember your owne words Pag 280. N. 95. May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted And then suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall what would you doe The same reason of not erring in Fundamentalls for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her would also oblige you nor to forsake her and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned alledged by him to proue that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the
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
Point that I need not say one word to ponder your words or declare the force of them Pag 7. N. 3. You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therfore do we inferr Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation and more But we can never yield so much to you Pag. 85. N. 89. You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church And we haue heard you say Pag 16. N. 20. If she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique This you say and make good the like inference which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique and other like Assertions of his Pag 163. N. 56. You say From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she the Roman Church retaines and the practise of them may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon These Points of Christianity which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally marke how you professe to learne even out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures vs that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that belieue them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to vs certaine damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamentall and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by your owne Confession If we did not belieue as we profess we were no Roman Catholikes In the same place you say expressly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls yea you say Lin 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary wherof you affirme so often You example of Absalon was very ill applyed to the Roman Church which did not rebell from you but you against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father Pag 404. N. 29. you approue Dr. Potters saying Pag 79. which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as beleeue what they professe And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatioâ— Pag 401. N. 27 We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes The Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists If any soule may be saved in our Religion it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour with which no soule can be saved Pag 277. N. 61. you say The simple defect of some Truths prositable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seing therfore you haue so often confessed that we erre not in Fundamentall Points our errours in some Truths profitable only and not fundamentall may consist with salvation How then do you say to Catholiks Pag 401. N. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Herely and yielding you salvation neither He Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag 219. N. 50. speaking of Protestants you say They doe not disser at all â—n Matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mâ—ane by Matters of Faith such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be dâ—â—believed Now you know well that in Points of greatest moment which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants other Protestants stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag Pag 269. N. 45. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists For this cause you say that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church as Fundamentall Points are Therfore you suppose the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamentall Article Otherwise you had left her that is you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point Pag 272. N. 52. and Pag 283. N. 73. You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essentiall and Fundamentall Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag 272. N. 52. You say In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamentall Points Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith Therfore you grant that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag 401. N. 26. You confess that Dr Potter saith indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme Pag 133. N. 12. You say expressly By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well you make so open a Confession that we belieue much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I sayd aboue we will not because we cannot yield so much to you And here I must aske againe How you could say Pag 401. N. 27. As for
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
vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
errour not be damnable yea even though it were damnable and fundamentall which is to be noted because It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles The like you may say of Scripture it selfe that it might erre and yet that it could not containe any damnable errour because according to Protestants It is nothing but opposing the Scripture that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture which consequences are absurd and therfore as you would answer by denying the supposition that the Apostles can teach or Scripture can containe any errour so you know we absolutly deny your supposition that the Church can erre in matters of Faith which if we did grant we would not be so foolish as to beliefe that Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church makes an errour damnable but contrarily we would affirme that precisily to oppose the Churches Doctrine that supposition being once made could never be Heresy or a damnable errour And therfore we speake very consequently in First believing that the Church cannot erre and then in avouching that every errour repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church is heresy The Motto in the frontispice of your Booke taken out of Jsaac Casaubon in Epist ad Card Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ sayth Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendaue vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit Obserue that he speakes of things absolutely necessary to salvation and then I say if the Church be subject to errour how can we be sure that Her Deductions from Scripture are necessary or only probable true or false though to her they may seeme true and necessary You say it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itselfe and do not reflect by this vety saying yourselfe must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth For if she may erre in some Points and believe aright in others those errours may be opposite to some truth which she believes though she do not marke that opposition You say Pag 215. N. 46. no mans errours can be confuted who togeather with his errour doth not belieue 〈◊〉 grant some true Principle that contradicts his errour If then the Churches errours may be confuted as you will suppose they may she must belieue some truth that contradicts her errour and therefore if it be impossible that the Church can be opposite to herselfe as you say it is impossible you must grant that she cannot belieue or teach any errour and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herselfe because truth cannot possibly be opposite to truth 10. In the same N. 4. I must touch in a word that you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 19. some may for a tyme haue invincible Ignorance even of some Fundamentall Article of Faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such Ignorance or errour But you cite them thus Ignorance may excuse errours even in Fundamentall Articles of Faith omitting that necessary limitation for a tyme without which restriction the words sound as if absolvtely a man may liue and dy with invincible ignorance of Fundamentall Articles or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation and so want meanes sufficient to besaved without any fault of his which is not true For if he cooperate with Gods holy Grace they shall be degrees advance to the beliefe of all necessary Points though for a tyme they were ignorant of them And here I reflect that if a Protestant erre in or be invincibly ignorant for a tyme fo some fundamentall Point sufficiently proposed and believed by other Protestants they differ in the beliefe of fundamentall Points and the ignorant party sins not damnably and yet they sin damnably who disbelieue any Point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God though otherwise it be not fundamentall of it selfe and therfore it is cleare that in matters of Divine Faith consideration is chiefly to be had of the formall and not of the materiall object 11. In your N. 7. you say God hath left meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined Which concession is as much as we desire For no man dare say that God hath given any meanes only for superfluous vses or occasions and therfore seing he hath left meanes for deciding all Controversyes necessary to be determined we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdome imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any Since then as I sayd God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes he will not faile to replenish her with Wisdome to discerne what be the occasions wherin they ought to be determined according to the exigence of particular circumstances Thus the Apostles called a Councell vpon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moyses and the first foure Generall Councells which commonly Protestants pretend to receiue were gathered vpon severall occasions of emergent Heresyes The Scripture it selfe was not written all at once but as occasion did require and the same Holy Spirit which assisted Canonicall Writers in writing did appoint to them the tymes and occasions for which their writings would be most seasonable yet after they were once written it was necessary to belieue them as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Councell registred Act 15. and other Generall Councells and commands of the Church If Controversyes rise to such a height that there is periculum in mora danger in delaying to determine them either for avoiding insufferable breach of Charity and Schisme or corruptions in manners or invalidity of Sacraments which cannot be otherwise prevented If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent If errour be like to prevaile vnlesse it be condemned if new Heresyes be in danger to take roote if they be not crushed with speede if these or any other causes require the Decision of Controversyes the Holy Ghost will effectually inspire and direct his Church to apply a convenient remedy according to the Condition of the matter Neither ought it to seeme strang that somthing may grow to be necessary one tyme which was not necessary at another and in the meane tyme men may be saved by an humble preparation of mynd to belieue and obey whatsoever the Church shall in good tyme determine or command And by the way out of this discourse we may inferr that Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes in regard that such a Rule or judge must serue for all emergent occasions and Scripture being always the same cannot be applyed sutably to all new different circumstances as I haue often saied 12. You say If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane tyme
you would spend tyme in such toyes The maine Question being whether the Church or Scripture be Judge or Rule of Controversyes in Faith Charity Maintayned N. 19. proves that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge because it is not intelligible to all that is to vnlearned persons as the Church is and therfore inferrs that not the Scripture but the Church must be Judge And is not that a good consequence Besides you say that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his N. 19. which you impugne vndertooke only to proue that Scripture is not a Judge Therfore you grant that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place though he added by way of supererogation that the Church must be that Judge which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge it being supposed that either the Scripture or Church must be A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent and most important Truth 31. The words of the Apostle Rom 14.5 Let every one abound in his owne sense are prophanely applyed by you as if every one might follow his owne sense for the interpretation of Scripture which delivers Divine Revelations and you confess that to disbelieue objects so revealed is damnable in it selfe S. Paul speakes of things indifferent and which at that tyme were neither commanded not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law which then was mortua but not mortifera dead but not deadly 32. Your N. 104. till the N. 106. inclusiuè haue beene answered at large You suppose N. 108. and N. 113. that to find out the true Church every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine through all Ages or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first Age as you speak N. 108. Both which we deny and affirme that the Catholique Church of every Age carryes along with her so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour that no man who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness can chuse but clearly see the difference and behold a way so cleare ita vt stulti non errent per eam This answer is solid and evident for vs. But you who teach that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the Churches of all Ages and not for the Testimony of the present Church how will you enable all men to examine whether the Scripture and much more whether every Booke and parcell of Scripture hath bene delivered by all Churches even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church and by it include the Apostles Wherin we may vse these your owne words N. 108. This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no vnlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be vnlearned You say also How shall he an vnlearned man possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors which held always the same doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary vnless he hath first examined what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult worke than to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge But I would know how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age except by the monuments and Tradition of all the Ages which intervene betwixt the first Age and his which no vnlearned can doe because he that can doe it cannot be vnlearned And so it seemes you will haue vnlearned men despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith Church and salvation Will you haue them passe as it were persaltum immediately from this present Age to the first or Primitiue Age of the Church without the helpe of writings or other meanes of the middle Ages What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes except an infallible beliefe that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre And that otherwise all will be brought to vncertaintyes euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge 32. For Answer to your N. 110. till the 122. inclusiuè I say No man indued with reason will deny the vse of Reason even in matters belonging to Faith But we deny that Reason is not to yield to Authority when assisted by Gods Grace it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide and Authority to which all must submitt and so as it were cease to be different particular men and be in a manner one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge for want wherof Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided into as many opinions as they are men of different vnderstanding and will yea one man is divided from himself as he alters his Opinions Reason then may dispose or manuduct vs to Faith but the Object into which Faith is resolved is the Divine Revelation at which Reason did point and to which it must submitt Otherwise Faith were but Opinion which even Dr Potter affirmes to be a good consequence And it should not be the Gift of God but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature and the Habit be an acquired and not infused Habit which is evidently against Scripture as I proved in the Introduction I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do as if the places which you alledg N. 116. for trying of Spirits did signify that we are to try them by humane Reason and not by the Doctrine of the Church and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke the very quintessence of Socinianisme 33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say N. 29. What good states men would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church And N. 22. What confusion to the Church what danger to the Commonwealth this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring I leaue to the consideration of any judicious indifferent man For if it be free for every one to thinke as he pleases who will hinder him from vttering his thoughts in matters which he conceives belong to Faith and to conforme his practise to his thoughts and words And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church and sedition in the Commonwealth And therfore what you say N. 122. that men only interpret for themselves is not alwaies true but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other both Private ād Publicke Persons and Communityes if their thoughts chance to pitch vpon some object which may be cause of mischiefe 34. Howsoever N. 118.
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
And hence it followeth that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God Marke convinced that they are from God which implyes a sufficient proposall Now with what conscience could you conceale all these cleare words of Potter which by Charity Maintayned are set downe immediatly after those which you cite out of Him Charity Maintaryned and impugne them Yea the Doctor Pag 213. in the very same threed of discourse which Charity Maintayned alledged out of his Pag 211. of which you take notice and endeavour to defend saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Cardinall Perron calls the Faith of adherency or non-repugnance may suffice to witt an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared You see these words are in effect the very same which you answer it is enough by Dr Potters confessing to belieue some things negatively c and that He expressly requires that a thing be sufficiently cleared before one can be obliged to a non-repugnance or a non-denyall of it Which doctrine of Potter being once supposed certainly this is a good Argument It is enough for salvation not to deny some things when they shall be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therfore the denyall of them when they are so proposed is not enough for salvation but excludes it Can you possibly haue any thing to object against so manifest a deduction and truth as this is 17. You say N. 22. it is As if you should say One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therfore without a Horse no man can goe a journey As if some divine truths viz Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denyed And others for want of sufficient declaration denyable without danger 18. Answer You could not even for a fee haue pleaded more effectually in fauour of Charity Maintayned than now you doe while your intention is to impugne Him You grant that truths sufficiently declared are such as of necessity are not to be denyed But both Dr Potter and Charity Maintayned in the words of which we treat expressly speake of truths sufficienty declared as I haue proved therfore even by your owne confession they cannot be denyed which is the inference of Charity Maintayned I confesse my selfe to find great difficulty how to frame any answer to your example of a Horse because I cannot penetrate what vse or application you intended or could make of it Only I wish you to consider that when Dr Potter saith it is enough to belieue some things by as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed so that one haue an humble preparation of mynd to belieue them when they are sufficiently cleared that they are revealed as we haue heard him speake he supposes that it is necessary to salvation to haue such a preparation of mynd And then your similitude must goe thus A horse is necessary for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey and so we may say it is necessary and not only sufficient for salvation in preparation of mynd not to reject any Point sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God Therfore whosoever is not so prepared excludes himselfe from salvation which is that we would haue Or els thus A horse is enough for a man to goe a journey not absolutly but vpon condition that he be not lame or extremely weake or otherwise vnable to travell Therfore if a horse be lame or otherwise vnable he is not enough for a man to goe a journey which consequence will teach vs to make this inference it is enough for salvation that one belieue some things with an implicite Faith not absolutly but vpon condition that he be ready to imbrace and belieue them actually and explicitly when they shall be sufficiently propounded in particular Therfore an implicite Faith is not sufficient for salvation if he want such a readiness of mynd which is our Conclusion Never the lesse if your Faith be so strong that you will needs haue one horse though lame and loaden with as many diseases as a horse to be enough or sufficient though not necessary for a man to goe a journey and for that cause that this is no good consequence One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey you know that not only Catholikes but Potter yourselfe and all Protestants as we haue heard you affirme hertofore and all Christians must deny the parity it being most certaine and evident that the beliefe of all Points Fundamentall is not enough for salvation but is of itselfe taken alone as it were lame and too weake without a mynd ready not to contradict whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as witnessed by God which is absolutely necessary to salvation and therefore we must still conclude that all denyall of any Divine Truth sufficiently propounded excludes salvation though one be supposed to belieue all Points which are Fundamentall of their owne nature These are the best considerations that I can draw from your example of a horse which yet you see make strongly for vs against yourselfe 14. You are pleased N. 24. to summe vp or as you speake bring out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned in his Chap 3. N. 5. and then you censure it thus Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument â—o close vp a weake discourse wherin both the PropositionÌ„s are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the Conclusion vtterly inconsequent 20. Answer You are so far from bringing out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned that you haue cast over it a cloude and darknesse which neither you nor any body els will be able to remoue from it and place it in its owne former light except by hearing his owne words which are these I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence therof and therfore if the nature and being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motiue for which he believes which is Gods Word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Unity and Diversity of Faith must be measured by Gods Revelation which is a like for all Objects and not by the smalness or greatness of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of Faith is not taken chiefly from the greatness or smalness of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only Fundamentall Points and an other who together with them doth also belieue Points not Fundamentall should haue Faith of formall
Church and your labour and paines taken therin are lost in order to any other effect except contrary to your desires to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned which was That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone To which purpose He setts downe what sense Catholiques giue them and the different interpretation of Protestants from Catholikes and from one and other While therfore you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants and of Dr. Potter in particular what doe you els but make good the saied Affirmation and intention and proofe of Cha Ma that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self And you could not but see that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text to proue the Churches infallibility but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone by those examples which he alledges and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques and in which you differ from both So that even by your disagreeing from Catholiques in the meaning of those places you in fact and Deeds proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed and the more you object against Charity Maintayned the more you prejudice yourself and make good these his words If words cannot perswade you that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yeald your assent to Deeds Which thing considered I haue no obligation at all to examine your Objections against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned but only to proue by an Argument drawen from Experience and Deeds or matter of fact that there must be some Living Guide to interpret Scripture and you were wise enough not to take notice of this Argument which was evident by experience but dissemble the matter and divert the Reader with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants than Catholiks and therefore your interpretations proue nothing because they proue too much even in the common grounds and tenets of Protestants Nevertheless by way of supererogation I will examine all that you can object 72. N. 69. you bring certaine objections in a different letter as if they were made eypressly by Ch Ma and yet I finde them not in him whatsoever they be in themselves Then N. 70. you say The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her 73. Answer you know we deny this and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall And what cā be more incōsistēt with being of a true Church than errour against Faith which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue of the Church or congregation of Faithfull people Yourself teach that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation is damnable of itself and what can set the gates of Hell more open than damnable sinnes Neither can you flie to ignorance whereof you cā haue no certainty especially for the whole vniversall Church and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her whereof we could not be certaine if the Church may erre damnably and be excused only by ignorance which as I saied is an vncertaine hidden thing Beside The Church being appointed by our Saviour Christ to be the teacher of all Christians it is essentially necessary that she cannot erre even by ignorance but must be believed to be infallible in all matters belonging to Faith seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall as you confess in this Chapt. N. 36. that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians you teach Pag. 119. N. 164. in these words Though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous nay gurtfull nay in themselves damnable And in this Chapter N. 78. you say That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths you know we grant and must grant for it is the Essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defectiue in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice Out of these sayings of yours this argument offers it self The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths And consequently we are to belieue her in such points But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points vnless we belieue her to be infallible in all that she proposes as matter of Faith This also is our Doctrine Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in all points So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church you contradict both truth and your owne Assertions 74. And heere I must put you in minde of your saying that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls and yet we haue heard you say that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation and what is to be an infallible Teacher or Proposer but to be an infallible Guide And then further seing you say P. 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed we must necessarily infer that de facto the Church which is an infallible Teacher and Guide is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed 75. This is not all that I am to deduce from your saied Assertions You say in this same Page and Number No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certaine Denomination To which Proposition I subsume But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven Therfore you must grant that there is some infallible Church of one denomination which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this
do you N. 81. say to Him of the same words Seeing you modestly conclude from hence not that your Church is but only seemes to be vniversally infallible meaning to yourself Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion But of the intention and meaning of Charity Maintayned in alledging the saied Texts of Scripture for the infallibility of the Church we haue saied enough already 107. I wonder you are so vnjust as to say we proue the Church to be infallible because she is infallible seing our Doctrine is this That we first proue the Church to be infallible and then infer that whatsoever she teaches being true and that among other points she teaches one is her owne infallibility we may beleeue it even for her Authority as I shewed you must say the same of Scripture if once you belieue it to be the word of God CHAP XIII THAT THE CREED CONTAINES NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED IN ANSWER TO HIS FOVRTH CHAPTER 1. REpetition of the same thing will not I hope seeme either needless or fruiteless when it is necessary for some good purpose and effect I doe therfore intreate the Reader now as I haue done heretofore not to looke on the words and arguments of Cha Ma as they are cited and abbreviated and obscured and in a word disadvantaged to say no worse by Mr. Chillingworth but as they are delivered by the Author himself 2. Your first ten Numbers or Sections I omitt as contayning nothing which hath not bene answered already Only I wish you had declared what your vnderstand in your N. 2. by these words Every one of the fundamentall Rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God and therfore virtually includes an article of Faith For if those Rules be revealed they do not only virtually include an article of Faith but they are properly and formally objects and articles of Divine Faith If they be not revealed by God they are no more articles or objects of Faith than a thing not visible can be the object of our eyes or a thing without sound or not audible the object of our eares c. You say they come from God and therefore include virtually an Article of Faith If you meane they come from God as he is the efficient Cause of all things that is common to all Creatures and therefore not sufficient to include an article of Faith If they come from God as revealing and testifying them to be true they are formall Objects of Faith as I saied and do not only virtually include an Article of Faith But it may be feared that in these words there lurkes some hidden poyson as if the rules of good life and action as they are knowen by the light of naturall Reason and not as they are revealed and so become formall Objects of Faith were sufficient to direct our life for bringing vs to salvation and that no supernaturall knowledg were necessary No less obscure are your other words that Fundamentall Doctrines of Faith are such as though they haue influence vpon our lives as every essentiall Doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to belieue them and not to doe them For by these words how do you distinguish Credenda from agenda if both haue influence vpon our lives and in neither of them the act of our vnderstanding or assent is that which we doe but only it is the act which directs vs to doe other things and so hath influence vpon our lives But these things I omitt and come to 3. Your N. 11. wherin you say to C Ma Your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtile than sound a distinction without a difference There being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved Answer this last is very true For in that case there concurrs both the Affirmatiue precept of exercicing an explicite act of Faith and the Negatiue of not disbelieving any truth revealed by God But that which you ad nor no point to any man at any time 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 is manifestly vntrue For when it is proposed to ones vnderstanding that God hath revealed some Truth he may truly judge that there is no affirmatiue Precept which obliges him at that tyme to exercise any act of Faith about that partioular object and therfore may resolue to abstaine or forbeare to produce any such assent of Faith but think of something els and may haue reason to doe so v.g. if some act of an other vertue be more pressing at that tyme and yet he should sinne damnably if he did positively dissent And so at the same tyme it may be necessary not to disbelieue some Truth and yet not be necessary actually to belieue it It is disputed in the schooles whether the will can stay the vnderstanding from yealding assent to a conclusion deduced evidently from evident Premisses But no man can doubt whether the will may draw our vnderstanding from a positiue actuall assent to the Objects of Faith which are so obscure that they require a pious affection in the will which therfore may dissent ād are so difficult that for every act of faith we need the particular supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost and then what wonder is it that we may abstaine from doing that which is not in our sole power to performe and to which we are forced neither metaphysically as I haue shewed nor morally because we suppose there is no affirmatiue precept to exercise such an act of Faith in those circumstances It seemes you haue a mynd against all Divines to make no difference between the affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith wherof Cha. Ma. speakes Part 1. Chap 3. N. 2. and what he saieth may be applied to our present purpose and who will say That every one is alwayes obliged to be exercising a positiue act of Faith vpon all those objects which he can never disbelieue May not a man reading or hearing some part of Scripture only conceiue it per primam apprehensionem without affirming or denying as when one learnes without Booke or only considers the phrase or writes as at a copie and the like 4. You continue your discourse and say to Charity Maintayned Yet that which I belieue you would haue saied I acknowledg true that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely are yet necessary to be believed vpon a supposition that they are knowen to be revealed by God that is become then necessary to be believed when they are knowen to be Divine Revelations But Ch. Ma hath no reason to accept as a favour this explication of yours which containes false doctrine as if all truths became necessary to be believed by an explicite actuall belief when they are known to be divine Revelations
his principles must be resolved into Reason just as I sayd hertofore that although he seeme in words to extoll Scripture as a Perfect Rule the only ground of our Faith containing evidently all necessary points and the like yet indeed by his wicked Tenets concerning it he deprives it of all authority and makes it vnable to deliver vs any thing with absolute certainty A just judgment of God to bring provd men to confusion and intrap them in their owne snares and proue their wisdome to be but foolishness even by crossing and contradicting themselves and overthrowing the maine foundations of their pretended friends or clients as this man destroyes the maine ground of Socinians Reason and the only Rule of Protestants Scripture If contradictions may be true you or any other may write Books with much security and without feare of being confuted For when you are brought to the hard exigent of acknowledging contradictions your answer will be that one may assent to contradictions and so one by all his paines taken to confute you shall only proue what you grant and seeke to proue And in particular it will be impossible to confute the Reasons whereby you endeavour to proue this your assertion because whatsoever is alledged can inferr no greater absurdity than that which you grant that contradictoryes may be true And on the other side it will not be in your power to confute any man seing the most you can doe will be to driue him vnto contradictions which he being taught by you will say is no absurdity and so all will be at a stand and become silent disputants And it may be true that euen this your assertion contradictions may be true may be saied both to be true and fals or not true And by what Logick can you or any who holds this Doctrine be confuted Not ostensiuè as Logicians speak because this is primum principium of all other nor deducendo ad absurdum or impossible seing the greatest absurdity that one can be brought to is that which you grant And there fore Christianity maintayned Pag 62. saied truly that your Reasons if you hold them for good must proue the contrary of that which you intended that is your proofes that we may assent to contradictions must suppose that we cannot assent to them which if you do not suppose you will never be able to convince any man in any thing Besides if your Reasons proue any thing they proue that one may assent to formall contradictions which yet you pretend to deny and therefore even in this respect you in fact hold contradictions But let vs heare your Reasons 22. Your first is this Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue But there haue bene some who haue believen and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristoile disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue contradictions 23. Answer 1. We haue heard you saying N. 47. 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 Now I ask whether those men whom Aristotle impugnes were in their right wits or no If they were Then your Argument if it proue any thing proves that it is possible for men in their right wits to belieue contradictions expressed in termes for Aristotle speaks of such cōtradictions And then how do you say It is difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction Seing in our case it is all one to be difficult and impossible since that which the light of reason tells vs is that it is impossible and not only difficult and if you deny it to be impossible you will not be able to proue it difficult neither did they whom Aristotle impugnes make any distinction between being difficult and impossible So that this parte of the Answer to my Dilemma which supposes those men to be in their wits doth indeed put them our of their wits because according to your owne doctrine they could not assent to contradictions if they were in their wits But if those men were out of their wits surely you ought not to take mad men for Maisters in Metaphysicks which is no better than to suborne sleeping witnesses as the Jewes did against our Saviours resurrection and as you doe to proue your chimericall Assertion 2. If you belieue that one may belieue contradictions how will you proue this consequence some haue believed and taught that contradictions might be true Therfore he may and must belieue contradictions If you say It implies contradictions that one should belieue a thing to be true and yet that it is impossible for him to assent to it it will be answered what then Do you not suppose and teach even this which in this answer you take to be absurd that one may assent to contradictions will you haue it possible that one may assent to contradictions when you affirme it and not possible when an other sayes the same 3. If any saied and believed that contradictions might be true they erred against the first and most knowne Principle of nature and so as you inferr Contradictoryes were believed to be true therfore they might be believed to be true I take the contrary truth It is knowne by the light of nature that contradictories cannot be true and infer Therefore it is impossible to belieue them being conceived to be Contradictoryes if men be in theyr wits If you conceyue Aristotle did sufficiently confute those men why do you alledg theyr confessed fals doctrine to proue that which you pretend to be true Certainly this is neither an honest kind of proceeding nor a good way of proving If your opinion be that he did not refell them effectually without doubt it had bene a Work beseeming your wit to haue confuted Aristotle and defended those men whose doctrine vnless you maintaye your Argument taken from theyr conceypts can be of no force at all Neither had it bene needfull for you to haue studied what Title had bene fittest for such a Work For you might haue remembred that Simon Magus is saied to haue written Books which he called Contradictorios Uid Baron Ann. Christi 35. N. 23. A Title most agreable to your genius both because in this place you expressly defend Contradictions and in regard that through your whole Booke you do indeed fall into them more frequently than I could haue imagined Yet as for those men whom Aristotle impugnes it is one thing that they saied they believed Contradictions might be true and an other that indeed they could belieue them if they were in their right wits and vnderstood what were true contradictories In which respect Aristotle Metaphys Lib 4. Cap 3. saieth Nonenim necesse est quaecumque quis dicat ea etiam putare But this is not the first tyme that you confound the first and second operation of the
vnderstanding or primam apprehensionem and judicium Never the less if you be setled in a resolution to defend that men being out of their right wits may belieue Contradictories I say it imports nothing for our present purpose seing I hope you will not say that the fact of such men can concerne Dr. Vsher to whom Cha Ma objected that some words of his did implie a contradiction Lastly be pleased to reflect that Aristotle speakes of express and knowen Contradictions and yourself confess that it is difficult and men ought not to belieue such and therfore this first Reason of yours proves either too much or nothing at all and so proves nothing at all because it proves too much And I wonder how you say in your N. 46. Pag 215. Though there can be no damnable Heresie vnless it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no Contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth because there is no Contradiction that the same man at the same tyme should belieue Contradictions Let vs suppose this to be as it is a damnable Heresie Christ is not the Saviour of the world the contradictory is Christ is the Saviour of the world which is a formall contradiction and expressed in termes to which it seeemes by these words you may assent and consequently to express contradictions which yet N. 47. you are forced to moderate But when you say There is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth and add this reason or proofe because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions you must giue me leaue to speak ād say that you vtter plaine non-sense yourself talk of some non-sense distinction in proving that one may belieue contradictions because there is no contradiction that one belieue contradictions which causall supposes that we could not belieue them if it were a contradiction to belieue them and consequently that we cannot belieue contradictions and yet in this very sentence you say There is no contradiction but the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions 24. Your second reason is delivered in these words They which belieue there is no certainty in reason must belieue that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is fals But there be now divers in the world who belieue there is no certainty in reason Therefore there be divers in the world who belieue contradictions may be true 25. Answer 1. Certainly if there be any certainty in Reason it is in this that contradictions cannot be true and seing you hold this not only not certainly true but to be false it is cleare that you are one of those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason and consequently you cannot be certaine even of your owne Assertion that contradictions may be true And so while you draw an Argument from those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason you depriue your owne Assertion of all certainty 2. If once you swallow that absurdity of the truth of contradictoryes when you say This Contradicts truth therefor it is fals the answer might be that it might contradict truth and yet not be fals but true because contradictions may be true And I beseech you tell vs whether you belieue that whatsoever contradicts truth is fals If you say it is not fals you speak absurdly For what is falshood but an errour against truth If you say it must be fals you overthrow your owne Doctrine that contradictions may be true because in contradictions one parte must be opposite to a truth and consequently fals 3. That conceypt that there is no certainty in Reason being fals and injurious to mankind you cannot ground on it any truth except this that it is a very fitt Principle for your absurd Conclusion that contradictoryes may be true and that if you belieue it to be true you are in apernicious errour If you hold it to be fals why do you vrge it against vs this Sceptick doctrine 4. Your Argument proves that one may assent not only to contradictories not perceived to be such but to them expressed in plaine termes because otherwise there would be certainty in this Reason These be express contradictoryes Therefore they cannot both be true Thus still your Reasons either proue nothing at all or against your self 26. Your third Reason is They which do captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but for their seeming to be so But you do captivate your vnderstandings to the belief of those things which seeme to your vnderstandings irreconciliable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easy for you to belieue those that indeed are so 27. Answer 1. What is this but to vndermine Christian Religion wherin we submit and captivate our vnderstandings to Mysteryes which to humane reason seeme impossible and for that very cause we are taught to captivate our vnderstanding to the obedience of Christ And now you tell all Christians that by doing so they belieue Contradictions as well as if they believed reall contradictions which Jewes Turks Pagans and all men in their right wits know to be absurd and impossible and you confess to be vnreasonable and very difficult speaking of express contradictions as heere you speak of such since you expressly speak of things which to ones vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions I desire the Reader to looke vpon Chr Ma Chap. 9. concerning this matter 2. Therefor as in other Reasons so in this seing you speak of contradictions expressed in termes you contradict what yourself afterward N. 47. teach 3. The necessity that all Christians acknowledg of submitting our vnderstanding to Faith arises from this that they seeme to containe contradictions which could be no reason requiring the captivating our Reason if they did not suppose that contradictions cannot bettue and therefore this very reason which you bring to proue that men may belieue contradictions must suppose they cannot belieue them For if they could it would cost them litle to belieue that which to them seemed a contradiction 4. You say It is as possible and as easy for vs to belieue those things that indeed are reall contradictions as to belieue those things which to our vnaerstanding seeme contradictions which words suppose that it is both possible and easy for vs to belieue those things which to vs seeme contradictions and yet N. 47. you say it is very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue express contradictions Into how many contradictions do you fall while you treate of conradictions 5. Your Argument scarcely deserves any Answer For who is ignorant that contradiction must involue two sides one affirming the other denying and therefore
when one allthings considered believes one parte only he is so farre from believing things which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions that he is certaine not to belieue contradictions because he sees that he believes one parte only of the contradiction and rejects the other and is also certaine that as I saied contradiction must involue two parts And heere I would demand wherher you belieue indeed that contradictions can be true If you belieue they may be true then Christian Religion may teach Scripture may contayne God may reveale aÌ„d must assent to contradictions seing he cannot but assent to all truth And are not these blasphemyes If you belieue contradictions cannot be true how will you haue it possible for any man to belieue that which he believes not to be true You saied in your first Reason Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue And certainly I may better say Whatsoever a man believes nor to be true that he neither may nor can belieue and therfore seing all men in their right wits belieue that contradictoryes cannot be true it is impossible that they should belieue them But let vs procede to your 28. Fourth Reason Some men say you may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not belieue and grant some true principle that contradicts his errour For nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men know any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed on by both parts Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certaine that the same man at the same time may belieue contradictions 29. Answer First If it were lawfull to vse such an expressioÌ„ it might well be saied that it seemes fatall for you to be at variance with your self For I pray you suppose one to belieue that contradictions may be true How will you perswade him out of his errour By shewing him that he grants some true principle that contradicts his errour But if contradictories may be true and one may at the same time belieue them nothing will force him to leaue his errour though it appeare to contradict some principle which he grants because he may belieue both his supposed errous and that principle to betrue yea he neede not beleeue it to be an errour though it contradict some true principle seing both parts of contradictories may be true Chuse which you please May contradictories be true or be believed or no If they may then this Reason of yours proves nothing as I haue shewed Can they not be true nor be believed then to make good this Reason you denie that for which you alledg it and must say that one cannot at the same tyme belieue contradictions and that if he could do so this Reason were of no force A new kind of Logick to bring a Reason to proue a Conclusion which must be fals if the Reason or Proofe for it be of any force That is â—o proue that contradictions may be believed you vse an Argument which to haue any force must suppose they may not be believed How will you driue one from that which he believes by proposing a principle which even by your doctrine he conceyves may consist with that from which you would driue him So still that which I saied is true That your Arguments if they proue any thing must suppose or proue the direct contrary of that which you intend to proue by them and so not help but overthrow yourself Secondly If your Reason be of any force it can only proue that by ignorance one may hold contradictoryes which was needless to be proved it being a thing which no man denyes And then you must either acknowledg a contradiction or els acknowledg that you intended to proue that one may assent to express and knowen contradictions but that your Reason proved not so much as you did meane to proue by it For if your purpose was only to proue a possibility of assenting to contradictoryes not knowen to be such you contradict yourself in saying N. 47. Men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so seing it is evident in case of probable or invincible ignorance a man may and ought to belieue them and it were vnreasonable to doe that which all the Reasons that he can consider tell him that he is to doe as he does and that it is not in his power to discover his errour by any reasons that can represent themselves to his vnderstanding It cannot be denyed but in that case he proceedes prudently and safely and therefore not vnreasonably but as he should doe and yourself confess that men may innocently as you speak be ignorant of the contradiction Yourself tell vs in your next Reason that we cannot without extream madnesse and vncharitablenesse deny that you belieue the Bible and yet we belieue that some part of your doctrine contradicts the Bible Now seing this last is certaine by evident experience of Protestants who interpret Scripture so as what one affirmes an other denyes to be the meaning thereof you must either grant that men may rationally belieue that kind of contradictions of which we speak or els with extreame madness and vncharitableness say that no Protestant who contradicts an other about the sense of Scripture does as he should doe but is vnreasonable in so doing Chuse then I returne to say whether you will say your meaning was in this fourth Reason to speak of express contradictions and confess that it comes not home to that purpose or els that you spoke not of such express contradictions and confess that in this N. 46. you contradict your N. 47. wherein you say One should not belieue contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so 30. Your Fifth Reason we haue mentioned already That Protestants belieue all that is in the Bible to be true and yet we say that they belieue divers Doctrines against the Bible and consequently that they belieue Contradictions But seing this Reason if it proue any thing proues only that men may assent to Contradictions not knowen to be such it is already answered and confuted and demonstrated to be guilty either of insufficiency or to subsist by a manifest Contradiction to that for which you alledg it as I aÌ„swered to your fourth ReasoÌ„ 31. Your Sixth Reason is equally full of impiety malice and ignorance and is answered in a word That we absolutely are certaine there is implied no Contradiction in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore it cannot serue to proue that men may belieue Contradictions And seing it speaks only of Contradictions not expressed in termes but only involved it is liable to all the same exceptions which I haue declared against your Fourth and Fifth Reason Neither can any expect or even indure that heere I should write a Book of Transubstantiation You know learned Catholike Writers haue answered all
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
that Protestants are fâ—rre more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholique Divines in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church But Charity Maintayned had good reason For wheras Catholiques haue an infallible meanes to know what Points belong to Faith they are Religiously carefull and circumspect not to broach any thing which may in any remote way cross any least Article of Christian Religion as contrarily Protestants having no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture must needs be subject to innumerable and endless diversityes of opinions which therfore they will esteeme to be no more than indifferent matters and so you say in your answer to the Direction N. 30. that the disputes of Protestants are touching such controverted Questions of Religion as may with probability be disputed on both sides And what is this except to dispute of probabilityes as men do in Philosophy For this cause I haue shewed heretofore that learned Protestants speaking of the points wherin they differ call them small matters Things indifferent Matters of no great moment No great matters Matters of nothing Matters not to be much respected No parte of Faith but curious nicities Which shewes that Protestants speak and proceede with greater liberty in matters concerning Faith than Catholiques doe in Philosophy call Questions which they would never handle if they esteemed them to be things so contemptible as Protestants declare the matters in which they differ to be Besides this Catholiques in Questions of Philosophy bejond the Direction of Faith to which all Philosophy ought to submitt haue also the light of Reason and evident Principles of demonstrations for their guide whereas the Mysteryes of Faith being sublime and obscure and Protestants having no infallible meanes not to erre in the interpretation of Scripture they are left to their owne freedom or rather fancy incomparably more than Catholiques are left to themselves in Philosophicall disputes wherin they are restrayned and kept within compass both by Divine Faith and Human Reason subjected to Faith It is true when they will defend their defection and Schisme from all Churches extant when Luther appeared they will seeme to make great account of all points though they be not Fundamentall but this very thing doth indeed giue them greater freedom to multiply opinyons and increase dissentions not only with vs but amongst themselves vpon pretence of piety and necessity to forsake all errours either of Catholiques or Protestants I know not to what purpose you say Is there not as great repugnancy betweene your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is betweene theyrs For this is not the Question but whether we doe or haue the freedom to dissent as much as Protestants doe and haue liberty to disagree both from vs and amongst themselves and I haue proved that we haue not and then I hope there is not as great repugnancy betwene our Est Est as betwene the Est and Non Est of Protestants The rest of this Number makes nothing against what I haue saied and therfore I Let it pass though there want not some points which you could not easily defend 42. To your N. 51.52 I answer Ch. Ma. saied truly that while Protestants stand only vpon Fundamentall Articles they do by their owne confession destroy the Church which is the House of God For the fundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect salvation than the Fundation alone of a house is sitt to affoard a man habitation To this you say to Charity Maintayned I hope you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamentall Articles we meane all those which are necessary Vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary 43. Answer It is impossible that yourself can be satisfied with this your answer seing you know Charity Maintayned disputes in that place expressly against Protestants who pretend to Brotherhood Vnity of Faith and Hope of salvation in vertue of their agreement in Fundamentall Articles though they differ in many other Points of Faith This state of the Question being supposed and evidently true 〈◊〉 you meane for you speak very confusedly in saying only By Fundamentall Artitles we meane all those which are necessary If I say you meane that Fundamentall and necessary points are the same and that all points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God are necessary to be believed and consequently Fundamentall you fight for Charity Maintayned and grant that Protestants disagreeing in points revealed differ in necessary and Fundamentall points and cannot be of the same Church nor hope for salvation For you must giue me leaue to say I hope you will not be difficult in granting that it is not a house or a Church which hath not all the necessary things belonging to a house or church If you say that no Points are necessary but such as are Fundamentall of their owne nature and are to be believed explicitely then also you grant that which Charity Maintayned affirmed that the Church or house of Protestants consists only in the foundation seing they may differ in other Points not fundamentall and yet remaine a Church But then how can this agree with your Doctrine that every errour against any revealed Truth is of itself damnable Can it be a house of God which opposes Gods Testimony and is not capable of salvation without repentance of its damnable errours Haue we not often cited Dr. Potter teaching Pag 212. that whatsoever is revealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall that is such as may not be denied without infidelity And Pag 250. he saies plainly It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed Truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God Do not these words declare that though Protestants were supposed to belieue all Points fundamentall of their owne nature yet they are guilty of infidelity according to Dr. Potter and want something Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for salvation as long as they differ in any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Finally what will you resolue If errours in points not fundamentall may stand with the substance of the same Faith Church and hope of salvation in those who agree in Fundamentall Articles then you must yeald to Charity Maintayned saying that the Church of protestants is a House builded by the foundation only and yet you pretend to take in ill parte this saying of his If you affirme that for constituting the Church or house of God there is also required agreement in points not Fundamentall you overthrow the maine tenet of Protestants that they are Brethren and haue the same substance of Faith though they differ in such vn-fundamentall points and if you turne about to agree with them
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
Ma cites divers Protestants that say so 49. In your N. 108. There is nothing but a perpetuall begging of the Question and taking that for true which you know we deny and talking of odious matters as of the oath of Allegiance and Supremacy which only shewes your charity to vs and zeale to adde affliction vpon the afflicted if it had beene in your power and which you would haue wished vnwritten if you were now a liue You say our rule out of Uincentius Lyrinensis advers Haere Cap 27. Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought againe and againe to illustrate ād inculcate with weighty heaps of exāples that almost all Catholiks may know that they ought to receiue the Doctours with the Church and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctours is to no purpos against them that followed Luther seing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsooke not with the Doctours the Faith but only the corruption of the Church But I pray doe you not teach and proclayme and therby pretend to excuse your Schisme that the whole Church before Luther was corrupted in Faith and so by leaving her pretended corruptions you left her Faith and those doctrines which she believed To your N. 109. it is easy to answer that about interlining Potters words in the pag 209. N. 42. you will finde among the Errata that Ch Ma only askes what the Doctour meanes You do not well to explicate Hooker about externall obedience against ones internall judgment by paying mony vpon the judges sentence which is a thing not evill of it self but in matters of Faith to yeald externall obedience against his internall belief is perse loquendo evill Your N. 110. about the words of Hooker hath bene answered in all those places where I haue shewed that Protestants can haue no certainty out of Scripture against Catholiques as appeares by the agreement of many of them with vs and therefore according to the principles of Hooker Luther and his followers were bound to obey the Pastors of that vniversall Church which he found before his revolt and so you haue no reason to accuse Brereley or Ch Ma of any ill dealing in alledging Hooker as they doe who I do not wonder if sometyme he speak inconsequently seing all Protestants are forced to do so in this matter And heretofore I haue proved at large out of the grounds which Hooker laies that Protestants cannot be excused from Schisme You know your N. 111. is answered by a meere denyall of that which you affirme without any proofe 50. You say N. 112. that Ch. Ma. N. 43. hath some objections against Luthers Person but none against his cause But the Reader will finde the contrary to be true That they concerne his cause in so high a degree as no man desirous to embrace the truth and saue his solue or hath the feare of God can belieue that Luther was a man sent to reforme the world by preaching the true doctrine I beseech the Reader to peruse that whole N. 43. of Ch. Ma. yet I cannot for beare to set downe these words of Luther Tom. 2. Germ. Fol. 9. and Tom. 2. Witt. Anno. 1562. de abrog Missa privat Fol. 244. How often did my trembling hart beate with in me and reprehending me object against me that most strong Argument Art thou only wise Do so many worlds erre Were so many Ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into Hell to be damned eternally with the And Tom 5. Annot. Breviss Dost thou who art but one and of no account take vpon the so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all to erre why may be not permitt the to erre to This belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells and Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men whome do not these Mountaines of Arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq Menfal Fol. 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Praef. in Tom German Jen. Your glancing at the lives of some Popes makes only against yourselfe considering that God did not vse these men to beginne a new pretended Reformation as Luther did but they continued in that Sea and Place which had beene established by our Saviour and therfore the bad lives of some Popes which had been enough to overthrow that Sea if it were not setled most immoveably by the absolute Divine promise thou art Peter c and the Gates of hell shall not prevaile c. yeild vs an argument against Luther and all those who opposed not the vices of particular Popes but their place and Authority and the Church of Rome The words with which you close this Number containe nothing but calumnie falshood and bitterness and shew with what spirit you were possest In your N. 112. it should be 113. you grant all that Ch. Ma. endeavoured to proue and I haue shewed that in this grant you contradict yourselfe You say that in a Work which C. Ma. professeth to haue written meerely against Protestants all that might haue been spared which N. 45. he wrote against them that flatter themselves with a conceite that they are not guilty of Schisme because they were not the first authours therof But by your leaue seing those men keepe themselves within the Communion of the Protestants Charity Maintayned had reason to write as he did that they might be induced to forsake that Communion in which to persever in them were the most formall sinne of Schisme which consistes in forsaking the externall Communion of Catholicks with whome such men pretend to agree in beliefe Besides perhaps they are not Catholiks so far as to belieue they are obliged to forsake the externall communion of Protestants and returne to vs which if they belieue not they are not Catholicks in all points even of Faith which teacheth vs that it is Schismaticall and damnable to be divided from the externall Communion of the true Church and I pray God this kind of men would reflect on this your grant and consider that their condition is lamentable in the opinion both of Catholiques and Protestants CHAP XV. THE ANSWER TO HIS SIXTH CHAPTER ABOVT HERESY 1. THe neerer I come to an end the swifter the motion of my pen may be in regard that the more is past the more Points I find answered even for that which remaines 2. Charity Maintayned Chap. 6. N. 1. hath these words Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledg This saying you approue N.
2. if Ch. Ma. mean by knowledg an apprehension or belief But if he take the word properly and exactly Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and something more but he that believes many times does not know nay if he doth barely and meerely belieue he doth never know 3. Answer accordingly to the right method and order of doctrine Ch. Ma. takes knowledg in generall as an act of the vnderstanding or Congnoscitiue and knowing Power of our soule which must be knowledg as it is distinguished from an act of the Will and so in that Axiom of Phylosophers and Divines Nihil volitnm quod non cognitum nothing is willed or desired which is not knowne knowledg is taken in generall for an act of the vnderstanding or cognoscitiue Power without distinguishing betweene acts evideÌ„t obscure probable containe distinct or confused And if this be a true and proper acception of knowledg taken in generall certainly in the same sense it must be true in the particular species of knowledge as all genericall natures are properly found in every species and so we say of knowledg some is evident some obscure c and I would gladly know what other genus you would find to those and other particular species It was therfore necessary for Ch. Ma. while he spoke in generall and abstracted from evident or obscure assents to speak as he did but then descending to particular species he distinguishes faith which must be obscure from evident knowledg but not absolutely from knowledg and therfore you cite him amiss when you affirme that He requires that the object of Faith must be both naturally and supernaturally vnknowne whereas he saieth it should be voide even of supernaturall evidence which is not all one as to say it must be voyde of supernaturall knowledg and when he saied our assent to divine truths must be vnknowing for so it should haue bene written and not vnknowen which belongs to the object not to the act of assent he explicated it or inevident by humane discourse So that heere is no retractation of what he sayd of knowledg in generall but wheras you would proue a retractation by his words Faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity though I find not these formall words in Ch. Ma. yet I must say they proue not your purpose For knowledg being a Genus to Science it doth not follow Faith differs from Science therefore it differs from or is not knowledg but contrarily science being aknowledg it cannot be distinguished from Faith by knowledg taken in generall seing Faith is also a knowledg 〈…〉 Difference v.g. by being an evident knowledg and therâ—â—â— to cleare all when Ch. M. N. 3. teaches that Faith liffers fro Sea in the adds naturall scieÌ„ces to declare the evideÌ„ce of such knowledg For Theolegy in the opinioÌ„ of divers is a science though it hath not the evideÌ„ce which naturall sciences haue in regard that one premisse at least must be an Act of Faith and obscure All which considered you shew too much confidence some would say ignotance in saying so resolutely as you doe to Ch. Ma. That science and knowledg properly taken are Synonimous termes I think is a thing so plain that you will not require any proofe of it For it is cleare that knowledg is Genus to science taken properly and strictly aÌ„d therfore they cannot be synonimous termes Nay though knowledg were taken for one species of knowledg not as it is genus to different species but as it is determined to signifie an evideÌ„t knowledg yet it is not Synonimous with science taken properly as Philosophers speak of it not that 〈◊〉 for knowledg produced by demonstration but it is of a larger compass and comprehends all evident assents and among the rest the most generall Principles of nature as also the immediate Principles and premisses of science itself I meane of a demonstratiue conclusioÌ„ As for the signification of the word knowledg in our English phrase it depends on the circumstances in which it is vsed whether or no it be termined to an evident knowledg or may also signify any asseÌ„t though it be obscure If one should say I know no such man as Jesus Christ not any such thing as Christian Religion would you approue his saying by your speculation that he knowes nothing of Christ or Christianity because he believes it and belief or Faith is not knowledg as you speak But if an other to shew the fervour of his Faith should say I doe rather know than belieue the truth of Christian Religion he would be vnderstood to take knowledg for an evident assent distinct from Faith which is obscure If you consult holy Scripture you will find S. Paul to say 2. Tim. 1.12 scio cui credidi I know whom I haue believed as even your Protestant English Translation hath it And 1. Cor. 13.12 videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate your English Translation hath Now we see through a glasse And yet seeing seemes more to signify evidence and to be opposite to believing then only knowing And Joan 14.9 the English Protestants Bible hath haue I bene so long with you and yet hast thou not knowne me Philip and Beza in Latine Non cognovisti me And Job 19.25 your English Bible also hath I know that my redeemer liveth Innumerable other Texts may be seene in the Concordance of the bible to this purpose wherein knowledg is applyed to objects of Faith And S. Austine Lib. 1. de Doctr. Christ saieth non verendum dicere nos scire quae idoneis testibus novimus But I may justly be thought to haue said too much in this Question which may seeme de nomine if your presumptuous and insincere dealing had not forced me and if I had not taken occasion to explicate some other points by occasion of the word knowledg from which I now pass to the Matter 4. You affirme the saying of Ch. Ma. to be good if he meane by knowledg apprehension or belief wherein you are greatly mistaken if you take apprehension particularly and strictly as it is a species and the first operation of the vnderstanding distinct from the second which is Judgment or affirmation or negation and the third which is discourse For Faith is an assent or Judgment that a thing is or is not which apprehension is not nay to vse your owne expression if he doth barely and meerely apprehend he doth never affirme or deny and in our case one may apprehend an object revealed without Judging it to be true or fals A learned Heretique or infidell may apprehend the objects of our Faith better than some true believer but the difference is in the act of judging or assenting which the one does the other does not If you take apprehension in generall as it abstracts from and is common to the three particular species or acts of the vnderstanding apprehension
cause Now your selfe here N. 9. confesse that without credible reasons and inducements our choice even of the true Faith is not to be commeÌ„ded as prudent but to be condemned of rashness and levity I say an act of Faith must alwayes be prudent not that every one must be able to giue to others an account of his faith as you interpret the matter but that the capacity of the believer and all other circumstances considered the beliefe of such a man is indeed prudent I wonder what could moue you N. 10. to say to Charity Maintayned It is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they with cannot doe soe that is cannot giue a Reason and account of their Faith either are not at all or to no purpos true believers whereas Charity Maintayned hath no such matter 8. In your N. 11.12 you say It is not Heresy to oppose au Truth proposed by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ 9. Answer you haue no constancie in your doctrine Here you say Heresy cannot be without errour against some essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ And every errour against any Doctrine revealed by God is not a damnable Heresy vnless it be revealed publickly plainely with a command that all should belieue it By essentiall I suppose you meane Necessary and Fundamentall as contrarily Pag. 140. N. 26. you say not Fundamentall â— e. no essentiall point of Christianity But contrary to this your doctrine in other places you teach that whatsoever is opposit to Scripture is an Heresy as Pag 101. N. 127. you say If Scripture be sufficient to informe vs what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach vs what is Heresy seing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and opposition to the Faith But you will not deny that every text of Scripture is sufficient to make a thing a matter of faith therfore you caÌ„not deny but that errour against any such text being a deviation from and an opposition to Faith must necessarily be heresy which is more cleare in your groundes who teach that it is impossible to know what points in Scripture be fundamentall and consequently what is Heresy if you take it for a deviation only from fundameÌ„tall points And this you declare clearly in the same Number Pag 102. Saying If any man should obstinatly contradicÌ„t the truth of any thing plainely delivered in Scripture who doth not see that every one who believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoyd that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide You teach also that as things are ordered there is equall necessity of believing all things contained in Scripture whether they be Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and nothing is more frequent in your Booke than that it is a damnable sinne to disbelieue any one truth sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God and what sinne can it be but the sinne of Heresy which is opposit to the Theologicall vertue of Faith Potter also speakes clearly to this purpose saying Pag 98. He is justly esteemed an Heretick who yealds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded and yet it is cleare that in Scripture there are millions of truths not Fundamentall And Pag 128. An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture cleared vnto him makes an Heretick And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures be convinced of the truth this is a sufficient proposition to proue him thâ—t gainesayeth any such truth to be an Heretick and obstinate opposer of the Faith And Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the Diuine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without in fidelity Such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is Fundament all to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are of God And Pag 57. Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholick verity maintayned by this Church the fellowship of the Saints or the Catholick visible Church as doe Heretiks 〈◊〉 perversly divides himselfe fromthe Catholik communion as doe Schismatiks the condition of both these is damnable And Field L. 2. C. 3 speakes plainely Freedom from Fundamentall errour may be found among Heretiks Therefore errour against points not fundameÌ„ntall is Heresy seing they be may Heretiks aÌ„d yet be free froÌ„ fundameÌ„tall error Fulk in his Rejoinder to Bristow P. 82. The parliament determined Heresy by contrariety to the Canonicall Scripture Can you expect a greater authority then that of the Parliament But no wonder if Heresies be familiar and ripe among you if they consist only in fundamentall errours and that you are not able to determine what errours be fundamentall and theÌ„ who will be carefull to avoyd they know not what For the rest of this number I need only say that it is vnreasonable in you to desire a proofe of that which here you expresly grant to be true and is cleare of itselfe that either the Protestant or Roman Church must erre against the word and testimony of God seing they hold contradictories in matters belonging to faith and it is a fond thing in you to say that Ch Ma hath for his reason their contradiction only seing we alwayes speake of contradiction in matter of Faith Your N. 13. containes no difficulty supposing we haue already proved the infallibility of the Church as we haue done in divers places 10. To your N. 14. I answer that if Luther were an Heretick who can deny but that they who followed and persist in the same Doctrine must also be such seing it is a foolery to thinke that all of them can be excused by ignorance Besides we speake per se loquendo that the Doctrine of it selfe being Hereticall the defenders of it must also be Heretiks abstâ—acting from ignorance c. And so your distinction out of S. Austin of Haeretici and Heraeticorum sequace is not pertinent neither did Charity Maintayned ever affirme that all 's Arians who followed their teachers were excused from formall Heresy by Salvianus and I am sure Ch Ma himselfe is far from any such opinion yea even Dr. Potter who Pag 119. alleadgeth the words of Salvianus sayth he speakes of some Arian Hereticks from whence it doth not follow that he spoke of all those who followed their teachers and those of whome he spoke he
doth not absolutly excuse but sayes How they shall be punished in the last day of judgment for this errour of their false opinion none but the judge himselfe can know Qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinionis errore in die Judicij puniendi sunt nullus potest scire nisi Judex as Potter cites him in the margent Which wordes if one take in rigour suppose they are to be punished and that they haue sinned but that none can tell how or how far or how much their ignorance might lessen their punishment Your saying to Ch Ma You yourselfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Artans formall Hereticks which words you put in a different letter as if they were his words though I finde them not in him yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull that at least is your owne word whether these Arians who in simplicity followed their teachers might not be excused by ignorance And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended for you neither approue nor condemne it Thus you not without some tincture of your Gall. For Ch Ma being only to declare Salvians minde had neither reason nor occasion to declare in this place his owne opinion how far ignorance may excuse some particular persons which he did Part 1. Cap 1. N. 3. and 5. and Part 2. Pag 102. in the Conclusion of his Booke where you will finde but very cold comfort for such as hope to be saved by ignorance 11. That which followes is more against Potter then against Ch Ma who grounds his argument vpon the expresse words of the Doctor That to confine the Church to one part and place as the Donatists did to Africa was an errour In the matter and nature of it properly Hereticall against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to belieue the Holy Catholick Church To which Major proposition he adds this Minor But Luthers Reformation or Church if one man may be cald a Church was not vniversall but confined to that place which contained Luthers body a lesse compas then Africa Therefore his Reformation or doctrine can not be excused from formall Heresy This Deduction to me seemes no lesse then demonstratiue supposing the express grant of Dr. Potter for the Major proposition and yet you are pleased to call it a rope of Sand and an vnsyllogisticall syllogisme and say it is even cosen German to this To deny the Resurrection is properly an heresy but the preaching of the Ghospell at the beginning was not vniversall Therfore it â—â—nnot be excused from formall heresy For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not deny the Resurrection so may he also not deny the Churches vniversality and as the Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniversall though their preaching at the beginning was not so so Luther also might and did belieue the Church vniversall though his Reformation were but particular But good Syr how then do you defend your client the Doctour from this your argument To say the visible Church is confined to one place is properly an heresy as Potter affirmes it to be But the preaching of the Ghospell at the beginning was but in one place therfore it was formall Heresy As also from your other To deny the Resurrection is properly an Heresy c. Be pleased then to doe your Doctor the favour to reflect That considering the Predictions of the Prophets of the Amplitude Propagation and Promise of our Saviour for the stability of his Church to say that after sixteene hundred yeares it was reduced not only to that compass which contained Luthers body but that it was corrupted with many and damnable errours that is in true Divinity to a No-Church yea and that many chiefe Protestants expresly affirme that it wholy perished is a vast Heresy vnles you would rather call it by the name of infidelity the consideration wherof did bring some chiefe learned Protestants to renounce Christian Religion And so your argument drawen from the first preaching of the Apostles is of no force and cosen German to this To deny that divers Churches and Nations did receaue the Faith of Christ as S. Paul testifieth of the Church of Rome in particular is properly an Heresy against the expresse wordes of Scripture but at the very first preaching of the Apostles Rome and many other places did not receaue the Faith of Christ but only some of those who heard their first Sermons Therefore their first preaching was Heresy And for you to say that the Church is only vniversall de jure because it ought to be so is no lesse ridiculous then impious against the promise of our Saviour which was that she was de facto to be vniversall and not that she ought to be vniversall and perpetuall as every man ought to be vertuous and as the Donatists did not deny she ought to be vniversall as Ch. Ma. shewes N. 17. Pag. 242. of which Number you take notice for some other matter but dissemble this point which yourselfe also affirme Pag 300. N. 99. in these words The Truth is the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular And although in this you be much deceaved because the intention of the Donatists was not that which you faine for your owne purpose but vnder pretence to take care of their Brethren in that Citty though indeed that the world might account them Catholiks by communicating with the Bishop of Rome with whom to communicate was taken by the Ancient Fathers for an assured signe of being a true Catholik They had also as S. Austin de vnitate Ecclesiae C. 3. witnesseth a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist sayth Epist 163. Here did he first attempt to affirme that his communion was spread over the whole earth c. But because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of Language Whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spead over the whole world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest than he who should affirme that Luthers reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole earth being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the Sect of the Donatists This is the discourse of Ch. Ma. in the sayd N. 17. whereof you thought safest to take no notice as indeed destructiue of your argument As for your objection that the greater part of the world is not Christian c. every Christian and in
she proposes you would not haue wanted evasions by saying we should belieue her as far as she agreed with Scripture or in Fundamentall points only as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church 16. Ch Ma Pag 251. N. 18. sayth The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy which he proves by some textes of Scripture as 1. Joan 2.19 They went out from vs And Actor 15.24 Some went out from vs and Actor 20.30 Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things This say you is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church ād yet doe not separate from every some body for they doe not separate from themselves and their owne Associates it is a signe that their is great difference betwixt some some body and orhers some body betweene separating from the Church or the Congregation of the Faithfull and frō every other some body But if I proue these propositions every Heretik separates from the Church and every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik to be convertible you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy This is easily done by taking your owne grant That Heretiks do always separate from the Church For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth if the Church also may erre against any such truth there is no necessity that an Heretik should separate from the Church but may very well agree with her in such error and so the first part of your assertion that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church would be false or if the Church cannot erre every one who separates from her in matters of Faith must be guilty of an errour against Faith and so be an Heretik if therfore the first part of your assertion be true you must grant that the second is false and that as every Heretik separates from the Church so conversivè every one who separates from the Church in matters of beliefe is an Heretik and then it is no wonder if Scripture and Fathers assigne a separation or going out of the Church as a mark of Heresy Which may be further declared in this manner If all Heretiks separate from the Church the reason must be because there is in the Church something incompatible with their Heresy which can be nothing but the true Doctrine and Beliefe which she holds and is opposite to the error which makes thē Heretiks and which whosoever hold are Heretiks and consequently whosoever leaves the Church by occasion of such errors are Heretiks and if they had not held such errors they had remained in the Church Therefore for the same reason for which all Heretiks forsake the Church we must necessarily inferr that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks that is for the errors which they hold against the truth which the Church is supposed to belieue and if she be supposed to belieue an error an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her no more than she goes out of herself For this cause our Saviour saied Matth. 24.26 If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert goe you not forth Of which words Henoch Clapham in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag 23. sayth that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy or Schisme and not only that all Heretiks or Schismaticks goe out And now I hope you being convinced by Reason will be better disposed to receiue authority and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch Ma of which you say For the first place there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks but no Christians and Antichrists of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ Answer That S. John speakes of Heretiks will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament vpon this Chapter of S. John Uers 18. shewing out of S. Cypriā that all who separate themselves from the Church are called without exception Antichrists Pantaleon in Epist nuncupator Chrongraph saith Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis qui exierunt de electo Dei populo at non erant ex illo And in Osiander Epitom Histor Ecclesias cent 1. lib 3. cap 1. saith Nota Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur 17. The second place say you It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error when it was yet a question and not evident and therfor according to your Doctrine no formall Heresy Answer I see no such certainty as you pretend that the text Act 15.24 Some went out from vs must not speake of Heretiks that is of persons who held an errour against a revealed truth of which some might haue been sufficiently informed before the Councell and Definition or Declaration of the Apostles and that some did proceed in a turbulent and as a man may say Hereticall manner appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose it is sufficient that separation from the Church is a signe at least of a materiall Heresie or Heretique since the being a formall Heretique depends vpon individuall personall and accidentall circumstances of which to judg in particular is the part of prudence not of Faith though if once the partie know that his opinyon is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and will yet persist therin and rather leaue the Church than forsake it he cannot be excused from pride singularity and Heresie 18. You say The third sayes indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that sayes or intimates that whosoever separates from the visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Answer we haue shewed that as you say all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church so you must grant that whosoever separates for matter of Doctrine from the visible Church is an Heretique And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently going out or separation doth clearly put a particular emphasis and force therin as a mark of fals believers and seducers And this to be the sense of the Holy Fathers Ch Ma. hath proved and now we will make good his Proofes by confuting your evasions to the contrary And I must intreate the Reader to consider the words of the Fathers as they are cited in Charity Maintayned with the Inferences which he deduces from them and not as they are interpreted by you 19.
he call his Faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet further Ibid. Lib. 3. know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise than it hath once bene preached 24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer First that he writing to Damasus a Pope might be apt to write over-truths An answer not deserving a confutation Secondly you say S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman But this hath bene answered heretofore neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church Pope or Councell excluding that Epistle from the Canon or rejecting any Book of the old or New Testament which was afterward admitted Thirdly you ask How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections when you fly to so farre fetched evasions and your proceeding is inexcusable in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. Part. 2. Chap. 3 N. 30. gives out of Baronius Ann. 357. and Bellarmine De Roman Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. who affirme that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme or any error against Faith but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact and even greater Protestants than you doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra any errour against Faith but only that de facto by force of feare theates banishment and other sufferings he did subscribe against S. Athanasius as S. Peter denied our Saviour without forfeit of his Faith though he failed in the profession thereof our Saviour having saied Oravi pro te Petre vtnon deficiat Fides tua or as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul even after the comming of the holy Ghost and yet I hope you will not denie but that one might haue saied I am in the coÌ„munio of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built vpoÌ„ tkat Rock whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth and the same I say S. Hierom might haue saied of and to Liberius defining as Pope not as failing in fact as a man and we see that both before and after that forced act he was constaÌ„t not only in the true faith which he never lost but also in the profession thereof and what he did by force and feare must no more be imputed to him as Pope than a confession extorted by torture can be of force without a voluntary ratification Our Saviour saied men were to obey the words of the Scribes aÌ„d Pharisees not their deeds Is it not a doctrine of your owne Pag. 144 N. 31. that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain in no part of that which they delivered â—onstantly And certaine it is that Liberius did not make good his subscription if ever he subscribed to an errour but revoked it assoone as he was at liberty and as I may say taken of the Torture as alwaies before he had defended the Catholique truth If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls who will therefore say that he believed or defined Idolary to be Lawfull And vniversally if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions whosoever committs theft murther or any other sinne against the commandements must be condemned for an Heretique as believing theft to be Lawfull Finally if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms ArgumeÌ„t to cosist in this that Damasus was in the right only actually and accidentally the Saint had begged the Question and proved his owne Doctrine to be true because Damasus held with him and that which Damasus held de facto was true though Damasus might erre as other Bishops might whereas it is cleare that S. Hierom as his words express grounds himself vpon that firme and stable Rock of which our Saviour saied Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you â—llie N. 24. for interpreting the words of S. Ambros. 25. For your N. 25.26.27 I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31. whereof see also Bellarm in De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7. where this matter is handled at large And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian being disinterressed and delivering a generall Doctrine and prescriptions against all Heretiques and S. Cyprian speaking in a particular point wherein he was ingaged and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour condemned by the whole Church against the Donatists namely the rebaptization of such as had bene baptized by Heretiques and by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as Charity Maint in the place cited even now shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader in not making a difference betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen and a Definition of Faith which difference you might haue learned in that very place which you cite out of Bellarmine and we haue now alledged In fine all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian seing he was in an errour against Faith and therefore could be excused only by ignorance or pardoned by repentance In vaine N. 26. you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse but should haue sayd to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse But this you say without proofe against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul not of Fidelity and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness or errour contrarie to Faith not of perfidiousness contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity For what congruity is there in this speach The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle therefore perfidiousness or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them as if all who belieue aright must also besincere and vpright honest men Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare that if their Faith be true errour against Faith or falshood cannot be approved by them You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretiques if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome to be infallible for matters of Faith
this bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being neither evident in itself and plainly denied by his adversaries and not at all proved nor offered to be proved here or else where by Irenaeus To speak thus therefore had bene weak and ridiculous Answer This your Objection proves too much even in your owne principles and therefore proves nothing For whether you translate it agree or resort you must suppose that S. Irenaeus conceyved that the Tradition of the Roman Church was sufficient to confute all Heretiques and consequently that this sufficiency was not more questionable then the thing in question For if it were so you mak to vse your owne words his speaâ—h weak and ridiculous and worse than a begging of the Question and yet yourself do not deny but that his Argument was probable and sufficient to confound those particular Heretiques surely not by a weak and ridiculous Reason Yea S. Irenaeus affirmes it to be sufficient to confute not only those but all Heretiques all those saieth he who any way either by evâ—ll complacence c. and therefore Hee must suppose as a principle believed by all orthodox Christians that the Tradition of the Roman Church was powerfull against all Heresies And I am glad to see you at length reflect that if S. Irenaeus did not proue that all Churches must agree with the Roman his Argument had bene weak and ridiculous For by this your consideration I infer that the Answer which you and other Protestants are wont to giue to S. Austine or other Fathers is insufficient to wit That they alledg against Heretiques the Authority of the Church not because they believed her to be infallible but because she was at that time pure in her Doctrines which had bene only to begg the Question or as you say to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in Question and I beseech the Reader to consider well this point as a thing effectuall to make good my confutation of Chillingworths evasions in divers occasions and lately in our debate about S. Optatus And even heere you begg the Question though you reade it resort for the same reason that you say S. Irenaeus had begd the Question if we reade agree In the speach which you faine S. Irenaeus to make as yourself would haue him speak you say To this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty whether all mens affaires do necessarily draw them or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches there is and always hath bene a necessity â—f a perpetuall recourse of all the faithfull round about who if there hath bene any alteration in the Church of Rome could not in all probality but haue observed it But they to the contrary haue alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other where you make good that powerfull argument of Catholiques against ProtestaÌ„ts That it was impossible so many errors and corruptions should creepe insensibly into the belief of the Roman Church seing as you say to this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty whither all mens affares doe necessarily draw them or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches there is c. Who if there had bene any alteration in this Church of Rome could not in all probability but haue observed it But they to the contrary haue alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other Which retortion growes to be more strong if we consider that from Christ our Lord and Saviour to the time of S. Irenaeus there passed about the same number of yeares which are numbred betwene S. Austine and S. Gregory the Great and yet Protestants commonly grant that in S. Austines tyme the Church was free from those falsely pretended errours which they say were found in the tyme of S. Gregory and therefore you must either grant That S. Irenaeus did vainely impugne those old Heretiques and that you against reason approue his Argument against them or els that our new sectaries cannot possibly avoide the Argument which we Catholiques vrge to proue that it was impossible so many so great and so manifest corruptions should in so short a tyme possess the whole Church of God especially seing to the contrary all men in all and every one of those Ages did conceyue that they could obserue in the Church of Rome the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other And if notwithstanding this you say That betwene the tyme of S. Austine and the Popedome of S. Gregory so manie errours might enter without being espied you make the argument of S. Irenaeus to be of no force at all and so you must either agree with Papists against your Protestant Brethren or disagree both from S. Irenaeus and yourself with whom you cannot agree vnless you relinquish those your pretended Brethren and finally we must conclude that no convincing argument could be brought against Heretiques drawen from the Tradition of the Roman Church if once we grant that she is not infallible in her traditions wherin if she be infallible adhering to her will be a certaine marke of a Catholique and separation from her a certaine marke of an Heretique 29. You tax Ch Ma for translating vndique every where and of what place soever in stead of round about For that it was necessary for all the Faith full of what place soever to resort to Rome is not true That the Apostolique Tradition hath alwaies bene conserved from those who are every where is not sense Now in stead of conservata read observata and translate vndique truly round about and then the sense will be both plain and good for then is must be rendred thus For to this Church by reason of a more powerfull principality there is a necessity all the Churches that is all the Faithfull round about should resort in which the Apostlique Tradition hath bene alwaies observed by those who were round about 30. Answer if you take the freedom to make or create what premises you please you may be sure to infer what conclusion you like best That vndique may signify every where as Ch Ma translates it from all places parts and corners you will finde in Thomas Thomasius and Cowper and who made you Emperour of words to command a restraint of theyr signification as may best suite with your ends S. Austine super Psalm 86. hath thrice Vndique in this signification For having saied Duodecim sedes quid sibi velint videamus he adds Sacramentum est cujusdam vniversitatis quia per totum orbem terrarum futura erat Ecclesia Et ideo quia vndique venitur ad judicandum duodecim sedes sunt sicut quia vndique intratur in illam civitatem duodecim portae sunt And Ab omnibus quatuor
qualifyed Protestant who this very yeare 1651. hath putin print that Justin confesses that some good and honest Christians did not acknowledg that Doctrine of the Millenaries which the Doctor Pag 88. shewes very well not to be repugnant to an other saying of S. Justin to which this last Author sayes it is repugnant Now I beseech you consider how you can impugne Gods Church by a pretended tradition which not only Catholiques but even learned Protestants out of S. Justines words denie to haue bene Catholique or vniversall in his time and which this Doctor avouches not to be asserted as vniverfall by the Lord Faulkland himself whereby this Objection so often repeeted in your Booke comes to just nothing and I haue wondered that so worme-eaten and obsolete a thing as this is should be revived and vrged as a Demonstration against the Traditions of the Church But it is Gods Goodness to confound the enemyes of his Church by their owne wisdome and confute them by their owne arguments and is it not a great proofe for the infallibility of the Church that these her adversaries after all labour and study can alledg only such a toy as this to proue the fallibility of the Church for so many Ages wherein she could not but haue fallen into many mote and greater errours if she had bene subject to accept and deliver fals or apocryphall Traditions If you haue a mind to speak to the purpose you must produce some cleare and vndoubted Tradition or some Definition of a Pope or Councell for this of the Chiliasts or any other errour But this is as impossible for you to doe as that God can break his Promise that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her and that he will be with her to the worlds end You say If this Tradition of a thousand yeares was not conserved and observed in the Church of Rome had Irenaeus known so much he must haue retracted this commendation of that Church Not so by your leaue but as a true child of Gods Church if he had bene perswaded his opinyon to be against her Tradition he would haue retracted his opinyon and not his commendation of the Church vpon which he builded his Doctrine against those Heretiques whom he impugned otherwise his argument takē from her Tradition had bene of no force but petitio principij proving their Heresies to be false because the Church of Rome which in those particulars did not erre taught the particular opinyons of those men to be false Especially since by the confession of S. Justin Many Christians of pure and pious judgment held the contrary 33. Having considered with attention all the rest that you haue in this N. 30. I find nothing which hath not bene answered either by mee or by Ch Ma Part 2. Chap 2. N. 32. for as much as belongs to Him and as for your vaine affected florish against the most learned Cardinall Perron it is both impertinent to my purpose and really so slight that I could not haue imagined you would in modesty haue premised these fond words The words of the Cardinall I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants In a word I must say That you do not distinguish betwene matter of Faith and of Fact nor consider that although error against Faith defended with obstinacie be per se loquendo a sufficient cause of excommunication yet it may be also necessary in prudence for some circumstances to abstaine from inflicting such a censure and in the case of Pope Uictor the success shewed that even for matter of fact he was in the right For after his death the Councells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus which Protestants receiue as Lawfull Generall Councels excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Provinces which Uictor had excommunicated I haue no tyme to take notice of your seditious speach Pag 35. letter f that inferiors may excommunicate superiors if they did any thing which deserved it By which Doctrine you or any other Socinian might haue excommunicated thē who excommunicated all such as held the 39. Articles to containe any errour as is knowne you believed them to containe divers 33. To your N. 31.32.33.34.35 I answer that in the Authorityes alledged out of the Fathers by Ch. Ma. you will still find a particular preheminence of the Roman Church and you could not haue done vs a greater favour than to touch the matter of Appeales to Rome from the whole world if it had bene handled by Ch. Ma. as it was not and therefore I must refer the Reader to Catholique Writers and in particular to the learned Cardinalls Bellarmine and Perron from whom he may receyue full satisfaction Only to what you say N. 31. that S. Austine Lib. 1. retractat Chap. 26. retracts what he had saied that the Church was builded vpon Peter I must answer that Chap. 26. Retract there is no such matter as you mention and what he hath Chap. 21. is so answered by Bell. De Rom. Pont. Lib. 1. Chap. 10. as your objection will be found to make rather for than against vs. In your N. 32. you haue no reason to find fault with Ch. Ma. for translating Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the principality of the sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish seing it is cleare that S. Austine in that place attributes a particular priviledg to the Sea of Rome as the Chaire of Peter and a Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome as he speakes In psalm Con. partem Donati Whereby it appeares that he makes but one chiefe Apostolique Sea and it seemes this Translation of Ch. Ma. was so good that yourself could not perceiue or tax it till an excess of desire to trifle made you at length put it in your margent it not occurring tyme enough to find a place in the Text. Maximianus of whom you speak N. 36. is cited by Onuphrius Lib de primatu Petri parte prima and by Adamus Tannerus a knowen learned Divine Tom. 3. Disp 1. de Fide Quest 5. Dub. 3. Epistolâ ad Orientales in these words Omnes fines terrae quae Dominum sincerè receperunt vbique terrarum Catholici veram fidem profitentes in potestatem Romanorum Pontificum tanquam in solem respiciunt c Hunc enim Petrum de caeteris mortalibus ex toto terrarum orbe conditor orbis elegit cui Cathedram magisterij principaliter possidendam perpetuo privilegij jure concessit vt quis quis Divinum aliquid aut profundum nosse desiderat ad hujus praeceptionis oraculum doctrinam que recurrat You say Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I find no such thing in the Councells Neither can I belieue that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelue hundred yeares a goe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome But if that be true which you often inculcate that deeds are better witnesses
than words even that Maximianus who succeeded your wicked great Grandfather Nestorius in the Sea of Constantinople was a monk and a holy man and farre from being a parasite and an Embassage was sent to Rome from him the Emperour and people in congratulation of the victory gotten chiefly by meanes of Pope Caelestinus against Nestorius all which declared the Authority of the Roman Church 1200 yeares agoe though you tell vs you cannot beleeue it aÌ„d though you take notice of Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius yet you thought fit to dissemble this Embassage c. Whereof more may be seene in Baronius Ann 431.432 Your answer given N. 37. to the Anthority cited by Ch. Ma. out of John Patriarch of Constantinople cannot satisfy any who reads his words and your answer which is so evident that I need say no more 34. For answer to your N. 38.39.40.41 if in any occasion particularly in this I must intreate the Reader not to trust your summing vp the Discourse of Ch Ma N. 20.21.22.23 but to trust only his owne eyes which if he doe I am sure he will finde all that you object against vs in the saied Numbers to be answered already when we proved that Faith is the Gift of God and that in the ordinary course of Gods Providence it is exauditu by the preaching of Pastors Prelats Doctors c. And the necessity of a perpetuall succession of Bishops in the true Church besides what hath bene saied heretofore appeares by the confession of the best learned Protestants as may be seene in Brereley Tract 2. Sect 6. and Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect 4. and Tract 2. Cap 2. Sect 3. Subdivis 2. No man can doubt but that God may teach vs in what manner he pleases but seing de facto he will haue men to be taught by men aÌ„d that Faith is his Gift as we proved in the Introduction we shall be sure never to attaine this inward gift otherwise than by those outward meanes nor can we belieue the Doctrine of Christ without the Introduction of Teachers appointed and taught by his Holy Spirit Neither doth if follow that by this meanes one should be necessitated to be an Heretique because that there should haue bene a perpe â—uall Succession of believers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our power as you argue most weakely and seing Protestants teach that Heresie is a deviation from Scripture and that it is not in the power of man to conserue Scripture incorrupted Protestants may be Heretiques whether they will or no if your objection were of any force And why do you not make this argument Men cannot sinne vnles they exist and be in their right witts But that a man be in his right witts or exist is not in his Power for who can be his owne creator Therefore sinning or not sinning depends not on these things As therefore men may be Heretiques and sinners because de facto God conserves Scripture and preserves men in their being so seing he hath promised to conserue his Church without errour against Faith and gives every one sufficient grace to follow her Directions if they refuse to doe so they become Heretiques by their owne free-will not by any necessity Your saying By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one is manifestly impertinent seing the Direction of Faith is not the personall life but the publik Definition and doctrine of such as God hath appointed to be our Guides and whom he hath commanded vs to obey 36. Seing your N. 39. containes only a heap or rabble of demands without telling vs what you hold I were much to blame If I would spend time about theÌ„ especially I having proved out of Fathers and learned Protestants that the true Church cannot subsist without a succession of Bishops which is the point you desire should be proved before you answer the argument of Ch. Ma. and your owne demands whereof I must tell you in generall some are ridiculous some dangerous and tending to confusion some begg the Question some containe shrewd insinuations against the necessity of Bishops some are evidently fals and all of no force against vs. You ask whether Ch Ma in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa do not forget himself and contradict what he saied N 17. that they had some of their Sect residing in Rome But this is a poore contradiction For even D. Potter Pag 125. cites S. Austine affirming that the Donatists held the Church to haue perished through the whole world except in their Sect in Africa and Pag 126. the Doctor denies not but they had some of their Sect in Rome and you expresly affirme it yet because they were so few as could not make any considerable number it may well be saied that their Sect de facto was confined to Africa as they were wont to say and as Ch Ma must speake in their sense concerning them and he is expresly warranted by S. Optatus Lib 2. saying that the Donatists Bishop in Rome was Episcopus sine populo Non enim grex aut populus appellandi fuerant pauci qui inter quadraginta quod excurrit basilicas locum vbi colligerent non habebant 37. All that is materiall in your N 40. hath bene answered heretofore to your small credit You haue no reason to alter the Translation of Ch. Ma. of the words of Tertullian How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith Quid vetisimile est vt tot ac tantae in vnam Fidem erraverint Which you say should be translated should erre into one Faith For it is certaine that your obscure expression should erre into one Faith must signifie that it is not likely so many different Churches agreeing should erre in that Faith in which they agree which is according to the cleare expression of Ch Ma And it is cleare that the reason why they could not erre into one Faith must be because error could not consist with one Faith for if it could they might erre into one Faith and so your Translation if it be good must be beholding to his expression You say in the Pag 362. that the Roman Church is Catholique to herself alone and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches and in this Pag 332. N. 11. you say It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ Which sentences put together conclude the Roman Church to want what is essentiall to a Church and yet you expresly teach in other parts of your Book that she errs not in essentiall or fundameÌ„tall points How will you saue yourself from a contradiction in this As also in your saying that it is not Heresy to oppose any truth but only such a truth as in an essentiall part
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
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all
what hath bene saied heretofore and also by Cha Ma Part 2. Chap 4. N. 4. which you were willing to conceale In your N. 27. you say as S. Austine saies that Catholiques approue the Doctrine of Donatists but abhorre their Heresy of Rebaptization c But you should say in stead of Doctrine Baptisme as Cha Ma hath it For how can S. Austine approue the Doctrine of Donatists and yet hold that they taught an Heresy of Rebaptization 20. In your N. 29. you say to Cha Ma I conceiue you were led into errour by mâ—â—â—aking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positiue assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yeâ— for vs to profess what we belieue not were without question damnable But to say though your errors be not damnable we may not profess them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you should say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we do erre â—in believing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry or as if a Protestant should say Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being vncertaine of the Priests intention to consecrate at least you expose yourself to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speach as an acknowledgment that you do not commit idolatry or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you do erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to haue mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not daÌ„nable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know theÌ„ may not profess the to be divine truths 21. Answer is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly aÌ„d magisterially as you doe in this place aÌ„d yet be so palpably mistakeÌ„ as you are you say Dr. Potter saies of our errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yet for vs to profess c. vpon which words you ground your whole discourse and yet both you and the Doctor disclaime from these words though of themselves they be not damnable and put them among the errata of the Printer in both your Books to be corrected thus though in the issue they be not damnable so as you obtrude to vs the fault of the Print for the words of Dr. Potter and will needs haue Ch Ma partaker of your gross mistake in a point vpon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded Now then the print being corrected in this manner though in the issue they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess I beseech you doth not though signifie that indeed they are not damnable to them which belieue as they profess And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself that Catholiques who in simplicity of hart belieue as they profess may be saved And therefore your owne correction and this very place of the Doctor so corrected returnes vpon yourself and proves that he spoke not as vpon a supposition of a confession but vpon a confession concession and positiue assertion and that you should haue vnderstood it so though it had bene as He and you cite it though of themselves they be not damnable And who is ignorant That the word though joynd with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth and if you will express only a supposition you must vse an other Tense and say though your errors were not damnable in themselves yet c or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable c and your declaring Though they be so by suppose or put the case they be so is against the common sense of all that vnderstand English Neither will any Catholique say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from her but though the Church did erre in points not fundamentall or suppose the Church did erre in such points yet you may not separate from her For betwene the Present and Preter-imperfect-tense in our case there is as great difference as betwene a positiue Affirmation and a meere suppositioÌ„ which as Phiosophers speak nihil ponit in esse The like I say of your other exaÌ„ple though we do erre in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner could not be excused from denying the reast presence and the same is evident in your other examples which therefore still returne against yourself If one should say though Christian Religion be superstitious and fals yet many Christian men lead a morall life would any Christian take such a speach in any other sense than that Christian Religion is fals Or if one should say Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Sonne of God originall sinne c yet he pretends to be a Protestant and to defend their cause against Ch Ma who would not vnderstand that speach as an assertion and not only as a Supposition that you deny the Trinity Or if one should say to an other though thou be a knaue and my enemy yet I will pray for the were this a meere supposition And heere it may seeme some what strange that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book should haue though of themselves they be not damnable and you also in your first Edition for I haue not the second and therfore cannot examine it should haue the same yea and ground your discourse against Ch Ma vpon it and yet in the correction of the Errata both of you haue in the issue neither can I see any reason hereof except because that strength of truth and coherence with some Principles of Protestants made you say that our errours are not damnable of themselves and yet vpon further advise finding this confession also disadvantagious you though best to turne of themselves into in the issue But the truth is that in these matters of damnable fundamentall not fundamentall errours of the infallibility of the vniversall Church of the nature of Heresie and the like Protestants haue no settled grounds but must say and vnsay as they are prest by different or contrary occasions as hath bene noted els where and therefore it imports litle what you cite out of Potter against vs seing that can only shew that he is forced to contradict himself as also other Protestants are Now how full the Doctor yourself and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of vs and our salvation hath bene proved heretofore at large out of their owne
but not Fundamentall is but a contradiction to your owne doctrine Seing whatsoever errour is damnable is also Fundamentall and whatsoever is Fundamentall is damnable if we respect the negatiue precept of Faith obliging vniversally all persons in respect of all objects at all tymes semper pro semper as divines speake not to deny any Point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Charity Maâ—nâ—ayned declares at large Part 1. Pag 79. And the same is taught by your selfe Pag 194. N. 4. In these words To make any Points necessary to be believeâ— it is requisite that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations and these though they he not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be belâ—eâ—ed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforce vpon vs by a necessity of believing this essentiall and Fundamentall â—â—rtâ—cle of Faith that all Divine Revelations are true which to dâ— belieue or not to belâ—â—ue is for any Christian not only in pious but impossible Or els it is requisite that they be first actually revealed by God secondly â—ommaÌ„ded vnder â—â—ine of â—amnation to be particularly knowne and distinctly to be believed From these words of yours it clearly followes that culpably to deny any point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God implyes a contrariety with this essentiall and Fundamentall Article of Faith that all Divine revelations are true which certainly is a Fundamentall Truth and therfore all errours that are culpable and damnable are in this sense opposite to a Truth which indirectly and by accident and by consequence as you speake becomes Fundamentall The same you deliver Pa 197. N. 14. where you say to Charity Maintayned I deny flatly as aâ—thing destructive of it selfe that any errour can be damnable vnless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it selfe or by accident to some truth for the matter of it Fundamentall Why then do you distinguish between damnable and Fundamentall errours Morover if every damnable errour as you confess every errour to be which disbelieves any sufficiently proposed Divine Truth be Fundamentall every damnable errour destroyes the Essence of a Church which you confess cannot exist togeather with a Fundamentall errour and consequently the Church cannot erre culpably even in points not fundamentall of themselves and remaine a Church which is the thing we teach and you through your whole Booke deny and are forced to doe so in regard you hold that Christ hath always had a Church on Earth and yet must pretend that she hath erred to saue yourselves from the imputation of Schisme and Heresy The truth is every sinfull errour against Faith in a point of itselfe never so small is damnable and destroyes Faith Church and salvation neither is there any difference for the generall effect of damnation between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and therfore it is impossible the true Church can erre in either kind of such points because it is impossible that she can want any thing necessary to salvation or be obnoxious to any thing destructiue therof and so as I sayd for the Negatiue precept of not disbelieving any thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God there is no difference between those two sorts of Articles and the reason is because the Formall object or Motiue of our belief is the same in them both namely the Divine Revelation But for the affirmatiue precept of being obliged to belieue explicitly some prime Materiall Objects of Faith there is difference in regard that as such Truths are Fundamentall and necessary to be actually believed so errours contrary to them are most properly Fundamentall errours or errours directly and immediatly opposite to some Materiall Object of Faith Fundamentall of itselfe which every body sees doth not happen in all errours Otherwise how do you Potter and other Protestants distinguish between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall if all errours be Fundamentall or against a Fundamentall truth But you erre by not distinguishing or not rightly applying the distinction between the Affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith nor between the Formall and Materiall Object therof The Negatiue Precept arises from the Formall Object it being vniversally and intrinsecè vnlawfull to disbelieve any thing invested with the Divine Testimony wheras the affirmatiue Precept is taken from the Materiall Object of Faith in regard that God hath commanded some Truths to be expressly knowne and believed as absolutely necessary to salvation Vpon this erronious mistake youvnadvisedly find fault with Charity Maintayned in your Pag 197. N. 14. for saying Part 1. Chap. 3 N. 2. That errours may be damnable though they be against some Points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall which are the precise words of Ch Ma. Where you see he speakes of the Matter or Materiall Object and not of the Formall of Faith which is Divine Revelation and so this Doctrine of his is evidently true For â—s all Truths of Faith are not of their owne nature fundamentall Truths so neither can all errours be fundamentall Errours But say you the deny all of any revealed Truth for example of that of Pontius Pilates being judge of Christ is destructiue of this Fundamentall Truth that All Divine Revelations are true I answer as aboue that you erre by not distinguishing between the Materiall and Formall Object of Faith and not considering that fundamentall or not fundamentall Truths are not to be distinguished in order to the formall object of Divine Revelation which being the same in all Truths all should be fundamentall or all should not be Fundamentall But as I sayd that distinction is to be taken from the Materiall objects accordingly as some are more important and more necessary to be actually believed than other If any object that this truth All Divine Revelations are to be believed is a thing which we belieue as a Fundamentall Truth and therfore every errour against it must be Fundamentall To this I answer as aboue that those errours are Fundamentall which are directly and immediatly opposed to Fundamentall Truths not those which only mediatly and by consequence are such Now the errour directly opposite to this truth All Divine Revelations are true is this All Divine Revelations are not true which certainly is a Fundamentall errour as contrarily errours opposed immediatly and directly to Points not Fundamentall of themselves are not Fundamentall errours in the common sense of that distinction which were no distinction at all if every errour were equally opposite to a point Fundamentall in itselfe 171. You desire Charity Maintayned to reconcile his doctrine that errours may be damnable though they be repugnant to some point for its matter and nature not Fundamentall with his other saying Part 1. Chap 4. N. 15. Every Fundamentall errour must haue a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the